DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Why does it matter if stop and frisk works or not?
Why does it matter if stop and frisk disproportionately affects minorities.
It is unconstitutional.... end of story.
guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
Why does it matter if stop and frisk disproportionately affects minorities.
It is unconstitutional.... end of story.
UPS Lifer
Well-Known Member
I disagree. Drug dealers do everything they can to enslave you into that habit.
You can't justify drugs and alcohol being non-violent crimes. Drunks kill by getting behind the wheel of a car, so can a drug addict. Drug addicts steal from law-abiding citizens to support the habit that someone got them started on. Dealers will kill you by any means necessary if you cross into their territory. Gangs deal in drugs and wipe each other out because of turf wars and encroachment into their territory.
I do agree that everyone is responsible for their own actions. But that is not the same as talking about a non-violent crime.
Also - before you can start taking responsibility you have to acknowledge that you have a problem, weakness, or addiction. Those of us who know what our weaknesses are, have the awareness needed to take responsibility to make improvement. God bless those who do! I have the highest respect and regards for those who do.
Last edited:
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Alcohol is physically addicting, just like drugs(except marijuana).
Some drunks get behind the wheel, so do some drug users.
Some drug addicts steal to support their habit, so do some drunks.
Some drug dealers kill other dealers to maintain their territory, so did some alcohol pushers during prohibition.
island1fox
Well-Known Member
dido,
On one point your are right-- it affects minorities by saving their lives -- murders that are "Disproportionate" In their neighborhoods.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
You don't seem to have any problem disregarding people's constitutional rights.
I do. I don't care how many lives it saves.
People who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
Maybe I should have clarified.... I'm talking about the 4th amendment.
Last edited:
UPS Lifer
Well-Known Member
The Supreme Court has ruled on many challenges to the 4th amendment. As with any document, it is left to interpretation. The Court decides. Guns are illegal in NYC so if a cop has probable cause to believe that exigent circumstances exist, he does not need a search warrant. That is a very simple way to explain it. Those who disagree with that search will say that it gives the right of a cop the ability to profile or more flagrantly discriminate as to who gets searched. This is the same argument the Democrats used in Arizona with SB1070 when there was no evidence of that happening.
Democrats have run Chicago for decades. Democrats have run Detroit for decades. Democrats have run Oakland for decades and they have run California for decades etc. etc. etc.. How is that working out for ya?
Good discussion, for the most part.
Island, I would ask you what leads to the disproportionate amount of crime in minority neighborhoods, in your opinion?
Is aggressive, police instituted, interpretation of an individuals rights the ONLY answer, or even the most cost effective?
What would serve the country the best? After all, we are all in this together.
The only reason I'm on this site is because I spent the vast majority of my adult life at UPS, and most of the people I met were fairly reasonable people, willing to fix a problem even if it meant personal sacrifice without immediate gratification.
If you'll honestly tell me what you think the total solution is, I'll gladly share my ideas. I'd really like to hear something positive.
Maybe I'm just too old, but I really don't understand why we (this country) just try to make everything as good as we can for everyone? My belief is that we would all be better off in the long run if that was are goal. </dream>
Island, I would ask you what leads to the disproportionate amount of crime in minority neighborhoods, in your opinion?
Is aggressive, police instituted, interpretation of an individuals rights the ONLY answer, or even the most cost effective?
What would serve the country the best? After all, we are all in this together.
The only reason I'm on this site is because I spent the vast majority of my adult life at UPS, and most of the people I met were fairly reasonable people, willing to fix a problem even if it meant personal sacrifice without immediate gratification.
If you'll honestly tell me what you think the total solution is, I'll gladly share my ideas. I'd really like to hear something positive.
Maybe I'm just too old, but I really don't understand why we (this country) just try to make everything as good as we can for everyone? My belief is that we would all be better off in the long run if that was are goal. </dream>
Yes, but being of color and living in a neighborhood that is mostly of color is not a reason to be frisked. Proportionately, stops of white people led to more arrests. How about we stop all the rich, white people in Sedona, because that demographic has been know to use (high priced) illicit drugs? Bet the Sedona police could confiscate some nice property.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
It's working out for me the same as it is for you.... or was that remark because you're assuming I'm a democrat?
I'm aware of Terry v Ohio, my problem is the assumption of reasonable suspicion. 'This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch.'
The district judge has ruled Stop an Frisk illegal because of the minority issues. I think she did that simply because it was the easiest way to rule stop and frisk illegal. Bloomberg is gonna appeal, and I hope it goes to the supreme court so we can get some clarity on wtf reasonable suspicion is specifically. Personally, I don't think the color blue or red(or brown for that matter) gives you reasonable anything.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
The judge who ruled it unconstitutional has ordered a pilot program that will use cameras to record some of the officers performing these searches. Once we get the statistics from the stops by officers being watched by cameras, and compare them to statistics from officers not being watched.....we can have a better discussion about what too much power by some means for the people who don't have any.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
[h=1]Obama’s new executive order will kill the 110-year-old Civilian Marksmanship Program[/h]
The White House announced on Thursday that it intends to “ban almost all re-imports of military surplus firearms to private entities” through executive order, which would effectively shut down the 110-year-old Civilian Marksmanship Program.
In a Fact Sheet published on Whitehouse.gov today referencing the upcoming executive order the ban on importing military weapons is designed to “keep military-grade firearms off our streets.” Exceptions for import may be allowed for museums.
The CMP tightly controls the importation of obsolete military weapons. The program was created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 1903 War Department Appropriations Act with the purpose of allowing civilians to hone their marksmanship skills, should they later be called into military service.
In a Fact Sheet published on Whitehouse.gov today referencing the upcoming executive order the ban on importing military weapons is designed to “keep military-grade firearms off our streets.” Exceptions for import may be allowed for museums.
The CMP tightly controls the importation of obsolete military weapons. The program was created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 1903 War Department Appropriations Act with the purpose of allowing civilians to hone their marksmanship skills, should they later be called into military service.
There are no data indicating any of the weapons involved in homicide were imported surplus military rifles. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s homicide crime statistics, rifles accounted for only 323 deaths out of 12,664 homicides in 2011, the most recent data set provided by the FBI.
UPS Lifer
Well-Known Member
I understand what your saying and I do grapple with it. That is why I researched why it is "OK" to stop and frisk. I think the key to fixing the problem goes back to that old 80/20 concept. Where is the gun violence happening? The idea is to protect those innocent people who live in those same neighborhoods that can't leave. We have a duty to do what we can to protect them. If one innocent life can be saved because we stopped and frisked hundreds, I support that.
Look, there are bad people on both sides. You may get a racist cop out there that feels he is the answer. BUT, I believe that 99 out of 100 cops want to protect those they serve and are just trying to fight the violence in those poor neighborhoods.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
I've got no problem with increasing police presence in high crime areas, that is common sense. However, stop and frisk itself is a failure. Somewhere around 2% of the stops yield results. So 98 out of 100 stops, the officer was wrong in his assumption of "reasonable" cause for a search.
I agree we should definitely focus police forces in high crime areas, whether they are mostly minority, or white neighborhoods. I still think that stop and frisk in any area is wrong though. We have a duty to protect them, not to violate their rights and just say it's ok because it's for their own good.
UPS Lifer
Well-Known Member
No - I did not assume you were a Democrat. I realize that when we reply with a quote that generally it is directed at the person with the quote. My comment was about the general feeling from those who don't want the practice to continue. The comment about the cities and the Democrats was about doing the same thing and expecting a different result. At least with Stop & Frisk, as sour as it may taste for some, a desired result has been achieved. The people who live in the poorer boroughs or neighborhoods are safer and less likely to die from an errant bullet than before Stop & Frisk.
UPS Lifer
Well-Known Member
I don't see where the disagreement is? I stated the same thing you did ??? I was talking about all of this being equated to non-violent crimes. I think that you can shoot holes in the theory that drug and alcohol related crimes are non-violent. (pun intended)
To be fair, that is why we have a court system. A defendant can state their case as to their culpability of the crime they are accused of. I also believe that addiction is a disease and should be treated as such. Again, non-violence or as I believe, violence is a separate issue.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
I said marijuana is not physically addicting. What are you talking about exactly?
island1fox
Well-Known Member
rr,
Getting very tired of REPEATING this. I apologize for starting out negative - but many people refuse to see reality.
The great society and Liberal welfare policies of LBJ had a devastating effect on family structure -particularly in the minority communities.
Children born to single moms are not at 73% in the Black Community---no father figure --no teaching of morals ,values or discipline. Young teenagers are ALLOWED to drop out of school ---minorities highest dropout rates ----roam the streets--gangs , crime,guns,drugs murder etc etc. They go to jail --most with rap sheets pages long for various serious crimes --the left yell profiling or claim because drug use is one of the crimes on the rap sheet --that all are in prison for "using"
Single "Moms" --have become -generational. When welfare reform took place under Clinton --people were not paid for the number of babies they had --so --now the game is the government comes in --the mom is a crackhead --so the "children" are put into control of the "grandmother" who gets payments for each child --many of the "Grandmas" are crackheads --bottom line --child grows up in poverty -driven to crime. When young man gets out of prison --cycle goes on and on.
I am sure that you have heard many BLACK conservatives --describe this as the new"Plantation"
Some solutions: Not just for MINORITIES for ALL.
A vibrant economy providing opportunity and JOBS for all. Not fancy speech's of forming a "National Jobs Committee" -that you never met with.
A total revision of the Tax laws -encouraging and enabling Corporations to bring back off-shore money to invest in the U.S. economy --not Obamacare that forces companies to reduce hours and create part-time jobs.
Serious penalties for Corporations that have manufacturing and Processing plants outside the U.S. --Heinz products --thank you Kerry is only one minor one that.comes to mind.
Children can stay on their parents healthcare to 26 --yet can dropout of school at any age ??? No
Whether they dropout or they are expelled --forget charter schools ---with disciplinary system our schools would improve overnight. If a child under 21 is expelled or dropsout ---mandatory attendance of reform or government "trade schools" The schools will teach them discipline and the moral code as well as skills to contribute rather than devastate society. The left yell for more money and teachers --the right yells for teacher accountability --neither side has the COURAGE to identify the real problem --THUGS -of any race or color --are disrupting classrooms --threatening teachers (research assaults) --before they either dropout of get expelled.
People that "have " children MUST be held accountable for them --not paid by society to raise them.
People have to stop making Excuses for themselves as well as for others ---if we all must PAY our fair share ---all must DO their fair share .
I could go on for days on solutions ----but this post is too long already
Similar threads
