Jump to content
AR15Armory.com

Stop and Frisk


muzlblast
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

The judge said it was unconstitutional in pretty clear and concise terms. End of story. Are we a nation of laws or opinions?

No we are a nation that when founded, the Courts, specifially the SCOTUS , and whose writers warned if given too much power, the Court would be the Republic's downfall.

 

As feared, we now have 9 fallible humans, tenured for life, who have the power to change, add to, or take away our contitutional rights and make broad, sweeping sociatal changes with a 5 to 4 decision. Despite all of the safeguards the Founders placed in our constitution, we have allowed the federal government to let 5 individuals impose their will on every individual in America.

 

It has been this way since Mayburry (sp?) where the Court granted itself this ultimate power it was never intended to have. The ultimate power was supposed to be in the hands of the people and the states in which they lived. In order to manage and control the limited role of the federal government, House members were elected by the States. In order to prevent the more populated States from gaining too much influence, the Senate was chosen by the individual State Houses, so that the Senators, who could be recalled at any time, were held to their only interest being the interest of THEIR STATE.

 

It was never envisioned that 5 people in black robes could over ride the will of the people, their States, or their reps to the federal government in the way that is practiced today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

No we are a nation that when founded, the Courts, specifially the SCOTUS , and whose writers warned if given too much power, the Court would be the Republic's downfall.

 

As feared, we now have 9 fallible humans, tenured for life, who have the power to change, add to, or take away our contitutional rights and make broad, sweeping sociatal changes with a 5 to 4 decision. Despite all of the safeguards the Founders placed in our constitution, we have allowed the federal government to let 5 individuals impose their will on every individual in America.

 

It has been this way since Mayburry (sp?) where the Court granted itself this ultimate power it was never intended to have. The ultimate power was supposed to be in the hands of the people and the states in which they lived. In order to manage and control the limited role of the federal government, House members were elected by the States. In order to prevent the more populated States from gaining too much influence, the Senate was chosen by the individual State Houses, so that the Senators, who could be recalled at any time, were held to their only interest being the interest of THEIR STATE.

 

It was never envisioned that 5 people in black robes could over ride the will of the people, their States, or their reps to the federal government in the way that is practiced today.

:thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the topic Stop and Frisk ? An what part were you unclear about ? This is the Stop and Frisk law of New York which clearly violates civil and presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law . What Legal right does ANYONE have to STOP another person and FRISK THEM ?.

 

There must be a reason , an why does this only pertain too a population of 1 million or more ? Isn't the law the law for everyone !?.

 

Apparently not when you consider HOW LONG IT TOOK before a Judge declared it UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHICH WAS OVER THREE YEARS !.

 

An temporary questioning was in reality STOPPING AND FRISKING for no other purpose than to confiscate any and all firearms within the City of New York . Perhaps some of you weren't aware Bloomberg has had a thing about BANNING and CONFISCATING ALL FIREARMS ...

 

AN ACT to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to temporary
questioning of persons in public places in cities with a population of
one million or more

Became a law July 16, 2010, with the approval of the Governor.
Passed by a majority vote, three-fifths being present.

 

 

Perhaps I'd better lower my expectations of comprehension on this site , seems some of you aren't quite up too speed ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the topic Stop and Frisk ? An what part were you unclear about ? This is the Stop and Frisk law of New York which clearly violates civil and presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law . What Legal right does ANYONE have to STOP another person and FRISK THEM ?.

 

There must be a reason , an why does this only pertain too a population of 1 million or more ? Isn't the law the law for everyone !?.

 

Apparently not when you consider HOW LONG IT TOOK before a Judge declared it UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHICH WAS OVER THREE YEARS !.

 

An temporary questioning was in reality STOPPING AND FRISKING for no other purpose than to confiscate any and all firearms within the City of New York . Perhaps some of you weren't aware Bloomberg has had a thing about BANNING and CONFISCATING ALL FIREARMS ...

 

AN ACT to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to temporary

questioning of persons in public places in cities with a population of

one million or more

Became a law July 16, 2010, with the approval of the Governor.

Passed by a majority vote, three-fifths being present.

 

 

Perhaps I'd better lower my expectations of comprehension on this site , seems some of you aren't quite up too speed ...

Maybe you should read the entire law rather than picking and choosing what you disagree with and changing the intent of the law.

 

4. In cities with a population of one million or more, information

that establishes the personal identity of an individual who has been

stopped, questioned and/or frisked by a police officer or peace officer,

such as the name, address or social security number of such person,

shall not be recorded in a computerized or electronic database if that

individual is released without further legal action; provided, however,

that this subdivision shall not prohibit police officers or peace offi-

cers from including in a computerized or electronic database generic

characteristics of an individual, such as race and gender, who has been

stopped, questioned and/or frisked by a police officer or peace officer.

 

 

 

And again the act of stopping those that were witnessed or suspected of committing a crime was not unconstitutional. What was found to be unconstitutional was the application in minority areas that was unconstitutional. Speaking of comprenshesion, it was not even the state law was not even involved in the suit but the NY City policy that was questioned. the NYC policy was in effect years before the law was even signed.

 

http://ccrjustice.org/files/Floyd-Liability-Opinion-8-12-13.pdf

 

"The City and the NYPD’s highest officials also continue to endorse the

unsupportable position that racial profiling cannot exist provided that a stop is based on

reasonable suspicion. This position is fundamentally inconsistent with the law of equal

protection and represents a particularly disconcerting manifestation of indifference. As I have

emphasized throughout this section, the Constitution “prohibits selective enforcement of the law

based on considerations such as race.” Thus, plaintiffs’ racial discrimination claim does not

depend on proof that stops of blacks and Hispanics are suspicionless. A police department

that has a practice of targeting blacks and Hispanics for pedestrian stops cannot defend itself by

showing that all the stopped pedestrians were displaying suspicious behavior. Indeed, the

targeting of certain races within the universe of suspicious individuals is especially insidious,

because it will increase the likelihood of further enforcement actions against members of those

races as compared to other races, which will then increase their representation in crime statistics.

Given the NYPD’s policy of basing stops on crime data, these races may then be subjected to

even more stops and enforcement, resulting in a self-perpetuating cycle.

 

The Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition on selective enforcement means that

suspicious blacks and Hispanics may not be treated differently by the police than equally

suspicious whites. Individuals of all races engage in suspicious behavior and break the law.

Equal protection guarantees that similarly situated individuals of these races will be held to

account equally."

 

So even in her opinion she admits that the stops were based on behavor but because minorities were often singled out for these stops it was considered racial profiling and illegal (unconstitutional).

 

She also compares this case with the TM/GZ case refering to neighborhood watch as "burning down the house to rid it of mice" so it shows her obvious bias. I would think that that statement alone would be grounds for appeal. The judge show obvious bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't comfortable with Terry vs Ohio when I first studied the case law in school. While profiling may work in some cases, that does not make it constitutionally viable. Nine men and or ugly lesbian women can't change it's inherent conflict with the 4th Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you should read the entire law rather than picking and choosing what you disagree with and changing the intent of the law.

 

 

 

I now somehow changed the intent of this law ? An what was the intent of the law concerning minorities and tourist ?. I was fully aware of the entire context of that law , Why was the law only pursuant too a population of one million or more ?. people in a town of 628K aren't as dangerous ? Inconsistency when implementing any law invites suit and is pursuant too class warfare !.

 

If we are a nation of law ,then the law must be administered equally too ALL parties , however those of us who've been around the block more than twice realize it's anything but equal !!!!!!!!!!!.

 

 

4. In cities with a population of one million or more, information

that establishes the personal identity of an individual who has been

stopped, questioned and/or frisked by a police officer or peace officer,

such as the name, address or social security number of such person,

shall not be recorded in a computerized or electronic database if that

individual is released without further legal action;

 

I believe that was implemented to avoid law suits against the city , by individuals who were stopped frisk and sent on there way !.

 

 

 

 

The Legislature of the STATE OF NEW YORK ss:

Pursuant to the authority vested in us by section 70-b of the Public

Officers Law, we hereby jointly certify that this slip copy of this

session law was printed under our direction and, in accordance with such

section, is entitled to be read into evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law had nothing to do with the stop and fisk policy of who gets stopped or frisked it had to do with the information that was retained after the stop so you are compairing apples and lawnmowers. Why was the exception made? Hell I dont know any more than you do? Why were exceptions made in Obamacare? Why are exceptions made in almost every law that is passed. To buy votes.

 

if you are going to be mad then by all means be mad but do it for the right reason. Being mad over something that the media cooked up makes us look just as dumb as those that are blaming Zimmerman case on race or stand you ground.

 

Even the judge in her biased opinion did not say that stopping people because of suspecious behavor was illegal nor was frisking them when there was a concearn for officer safety or reason to belive the person was in possession of contriband.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Even the judge in her biased opinion did not say that stopping people because of suspecious behavor was illegal nor was frisking them when there was a concearn for officer safety or reason to belive the person was in possession of contriband.

 

That would be tantamount to challenging the Supreme court's original decision on Terry, which is poor form if you want to climb the judicial ladder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That would be tantamount to challenging the Supreme court's original decision on Terry, which is poor form if you want to climb the judicial ladder.

I am sure it would but until that decision is overturned by SCOTUS it remains the law of the land and at least by SCOTUS opinion Constitutional.

 

That is not the agruement here though. Everybody wants to portray the picture that the cops where just randomly picking people and then stoping and frisking them without just cause when in over 99.6% of the cases the officers were at least on paper able to document the legal reason the person was stopped. Doesnt this meet the requirement of a "Terry" stop? Only half of the stops resulted in searches. So it was not just a random "up against the wall". In those frisks officers were able to legally document the reason for the frisk. Does that also not meet the legal requirement?

 

Now if we want to argue about the Constitutionally of Terry stops lets have tha argument but until it is overthrown by SCOTUS it remains the law of the land. For those that ask are we a nation of laws are opinions, obviously we are a nation of opinions because a small group of 1 to 9 people at various levels can overthrow any law they want at any time they are questioned about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was originally opposed too this law and still am . I don't get mad over things I have no control over . My main objection is why it took 3 years for a judge to come forward , is it perhaps because it was crafted by Democraps instead of Republicans !?. My comparison too AZ and Jan Brewer immigration law was pivotal point . I think within two hours of the AZ law , that Dept. of Justice filed against the State Not 3 years later .

 

My other objection is so they say that information isn't kept , but I believe that the vast majority of us are sharper than that .

 

Especially given recent revelations pertaining too IRS NSA CIA and Dept. of NO Justice data collection and being stored in Utah facility .

 

I personally have seen that facility from a distance , they DON'T ALLOW ANYONE I KNOW close too it !. It makes one wonder how long it will be before DNA collection is required , an then after they have it WHO KEEPS IT . Crap they can't even keep the pentagon save nor the Stock Exchange computer system !.

 

My Country is in great need of a HUGE cleansing and it's not the Thugs and Mugs which concern me , it's Our Gov. I fear the most now !!!...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was originally opposed too this law and still am . I don't get mad over things I have no control over . My main objection is why it took 3 years for a judge to come forward , is it perhaps because it was crafted by Democraps instead of Republicans !?. My comparison too AZ and Jan Brewer immigration law was pivotal point . I think within two hours of the AZ law , that Dept. of Justice filed against the State Not 3 years later .

 

My other objection is so they say that information isn't kept , but I believe that the vast majority of us are sharper than that .

 

Especially given recent revelations pertaining too IRS NSA CIA and Dept. of NO Justice data collection and being stored in Utah facility .

 

I personally have seen that facility from a distance , they DON'T ALLOW ANYONE I KNOW close too it !. It makes one wonder how long it will be before DNA collection is required , an then after they have it WHO KEEPS IT . Crap they can't even keep the pentagon save nor the Stock Exchange computer system !.

 

My Country is in great need of a HUGE cleansing and it's not the Thugs and Mugs which concern me , it's Our Gov. I fear the most now !!!...

 

Unless you are refering to another case, no judge has ruled on the law you posted a link to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't comfortable with Terry vs Ohio when I first studied the case law in school. While profiling may work in some cases, that does not make it constitutionally viable. Nine men and or ugly lesbian women can't change it's inherent conflict with the 4th Amendment.

RIght, because the police should wait until they either personally witness a crime being committed, or people give up and turn themselves in, out of the goodness of their hearts. Because that will totally work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RIght, because the police should wait until they either personally witness a crime being committed, or people give up and turn themselves in, out of the goodness of their hearts. Because that will totally work.

 

So what did you do before Terry? Was there some huge crime epidemic history has failed to note?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...