Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 92

Thread: Bloomberg eviscerates the NY Times over "stop & frisk"

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    <snip> A frisk is not a search,<snip>


    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Here is the legal definition of FRISK:

    A frisk is a type of search <snip>
    Well i'm glad we settled that.

    A frisk is indeed a search. The stated intention of such a search is the safety of the officer, i don't dispute that. I don't see how that in any way addresses the post of mine you quoted originally.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    Well i'm glad we settled that.

    A frisk is indeed a search. The stated intention of such a search is the safety of the officer, i don't dispute that. I don't see how that in any way addresses the post of mine you quoted originally.
    It's a pat down of the outermost garments.

    http://www.fletc.gov/training/progra...e.pdf/download
    Last edited by cr726; 05-08-2013 at 10:45 PM.

  3. #63
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cape Cod, MA
    Posts
    3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    Well i'm glad we settled that.

    A frisk is indeed a search. The stated intention of such a search is the safety of the officer, i don't dispute that. I don't see how that in any way addresses the post of mine you quoted originally.
    Sounds like your problem is with the Supreme Court.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    I grabbed this from your wiki link as it's far better articulated than i am capable:


    bolding is mine.

    You can make a case that terry stops are necessary to protect officers in the performance of their duties and the public at large. But you ought to make that case and amend the constitution through the legislature, not the courts as happened via Terry v. Ohio
    Interesting - do you hold the same view with respect to, say, abortion? (Read the Roe v. Wade dissent). How about the constitutionality of sodomy laws (read the dissent in Lawrence v. Texas)?

    The reality is, you've got the process exactly backwards. Once the Supreme Court rules that a particular thing is constitutional (or unconstitutional), the thing that requires an amendment is reversing the decision. So with all due respect to Justice Douglas, once his view on the status of existing constitutional barriers to Terry stops failed to persuade a majority of his colleagues, the claim that the Court amended the constitution is simply false.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache 51 View Post
    I'm pro law enforcement.
    That's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Frisk is not a search, you and the Justice are wrong hence the ruling.
    CR - that's not true. A frisk is a search - you are seeking to find something. It's a limited search, but on what possible understanding of the meaning of the word "search" is a patdown not a search?

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Here is the legal definition of FRISK:

    A frisk is a type of search that requires a patdown of the suspect's outer clothing; it may be conducted only to discover whether the suspect is armed, not to search for evidence.

    Um . . .

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Not quite, PD. That same logic would apply just as strongly to warrantless searches of homes, after all. Constitutional rights matter.

    That said, there is nothing unconstitutional in a cop asking someone on the street questions.



    I will defer to a lawyer, BUT is there not a difference between an actual intrusion INTO a closed door dwelling VERSUS stopping a person on the street in a common environment which is shared by all?
    I do not endorse warrantless home invasions by police without a serious cause, i.e. gunshots, screams for help.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    There's a difference between saying "reasonable suspicion is an appropriate standard for allowing a Terry stop" and what Palmetto said - which was, essentially, "screw the constitution - if it makes people safer it's ok, constitution or no constitution"

    You down with the latter?


    Whoa, doggin. Now you're ahead of yourself. Not screw the Constitution, ( I am a supporter of that document), just that a suspicious looking dirtbag deserves a closer look if a police officer thinks the dirtbag may be a problem.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Um . . .

    Should of stated not the type of search he is making his argument on.

  11. #71
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In Morris Co., N.J. at the right end of a Browning 12 gauge, with Nick to my left n Rex to my right.
    Posts
    17,061
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    That's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.
    Hardly, as far as I'm concerned law enforcement can pretty much do as it needs to within reason, I have nothing to hide. You go pull over a suspicious vehicle on the NJ Tpke at 3 am and walk up to the window.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by kali yuga View Post
    Money is control and control is power and power is everything.

    Forget that Slim is a scheister. The Rockefellers and Rothschilds started the same way.

    You are talking about a noble methodology that exists only in your mind, because they want you to believe it exists.

    Some day you will lose everything you have, that is certain, and curse that noble idea for a false notion. I don't expect you to realize it now.

    But you will, and you will ask yourself why you were such a fool to believe it.

    It's never too soon to wake up to reality.


    First, it is impossible for me to lose everything I have. My assets are very significant and carefully protected. It is almost impossible for me, my children and even grandchildren (whatever that number stops at) can ever spend it. After that I do not care.

    My philosophy has always been: You earn what you are worth and your position is what you deserve.
    I have zero problem with rich people (who are honest). Most are.
    If a guy like Larry Ellison wants to buy a Pacific Island and have super yachts - good, he earned it. No jealousy.
    If YOU feel manipulated, sorry. I have no such inferiority complex.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by stanner View Post
    Sounds like your problem is with the Supreme Court.
    I believe the court was wrong in it's decision yes. I believe that NYPD's use of the tactic is wrong, and that the implementation stretches the bounds of even what was approved by the court.

    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Interesting - do you hold the same view with respect to, say, abortion? (Read the Roe v. Wade dissent). How about the constitutionality of sodomy laws (read the dissent in Lawrence v. Texas)?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    The reality is, you've got the process exactly backwards. Once the Supreme Court rules that a particular thing is constitutional (or unconstitutional), the thing that requires an amendment is reversing the decision. So with all due respect to Justice Douglas, once his view on the status of existing constitutional barriers to Terry stops failed to persuade a majority of his colleagues, the claim that the Court amended the constitution is simply false.
    I understand that from a legal standpoint the supreme court is always right. However from a logical standpoint that is not the case. We were not always at war with Eurasia.

    Any time you believe the court has erred and either added to or taken away from the rights granted in the constitution you must believe they have effectively amended it.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    I will defer to a lawyer, BUT is there not a difference between an actual intrusion INTO a closed door dwelling VERSUS stopping a person on the street in a common environment which is shared by all?
    I do not endorse warrantless home invasions by police without a serious cause, i.e. gunshots, screams for help.
    Yes - the police are as free as any other member of the public to ask a stranger a question on a public street. They aren't, however, free to pat down anyone they feel like - the constitution restricts their ability to conduct such searches, just as it restricts the ability to conduct a warrantless search of a home, to situations where there is a significant reason to conduct such a search without a warrant.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    I believe the court was wrong in it's decision yes. I believe that NYPD's use of the tactic is wrong, and that the implementation stretches the bounds of even what was approved by the court.


    Yes.



    I understand that from a legal standpoint the supreme court is always right. However from a logical standpoint that is not the case. We were not always at war with Eurasia.

    Any time you believe the court has erred and either added to or taken away from the rights granted in the constitution you must believe they have effectively amended it.
    I know. We've always been at war with Eastasia (nice ref)

    The bottom line is that the system includes rules of decision that govern the way the document is to be interpreted in cases of ambiguity. It's a necessary part of a constitutional system (and the only reason the system has lasted this long), such that from within the system, Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution simply aren't tantamount to amendments (whether you agree with the rationale or not).

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Whoa, doggin. Now you're ahead of yourself. Not screw the Constitution, ( I am a supporter of that document), just that a suspicious looking dirtbag deserves a closer look if a police officer thinks the dirtbag may be a problem.
    Heh - I know your typical position. But the "safety of all trumps the rights of the few" phrase doesn't mean "this is contitutional because" - it means "I don't care whether this violates anyone's constitutional rights so long as it keeps people safer".

    That may not be what you meant - but it's what you conveyed.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Yes - the police are as free as any other member of the public to ask a stranger a question on a public street. They aren't, however, free to pat down anyone they feel like - the constitution restricts their ability to conduct such searches, just as it restricts the ability to conduct a warrantless search of a home, to situations where there is a significant reason to conduct such a search without a warrant.

    Here's my quandary: I have been actually stopped by a police officer way back when on my way to a corporate HQ through a bad area. Three piece suit etc, he thought I might be a Caucasian drug lord. LOL. No pat down after I showed a business card.
    If a guy LOOKS like a problem (police are pretty good here) and they don't like the initial answer, why can't they go a step further? seems like probable cause to me. And good police work. Preemptive action?

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Heh - I know your typical position. But the "safety of all trumps the rights of the few" phrase doesn't mean "this is contitutional because" - it means "I don't care whether this violates anyone's constitutional rights so long as it keeps people safer".

    That may not be what you meant - but it's what you conveyed.

    Now I'm "Typical"? Sorry about the cupcake major comment. LOL

    I am very concerned about the rights of decent people these days. I am a serious supporter of police. One or two bad ones get weeded out. Excesses should not be tolerated. Basics? I am ok with a bum getting frisked. Or a person looking suspicious or unsteady.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    First, it is impossible for me to lose everything I have.
    I think you missed his point, by a wide margin.

  20. #80
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    40,070
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    If a guy LOOKS like a problem (police are pretty good here) and they don't like the initial answer, why can't they go a step further? seems like probable cause to me. And good police work. Preemptive action?
    Cops in NYS can go further, if, they can articulate it through the lense of 140.50 of the CPL. Often, a few pointed questions can throw a bad guy off balance and raise the level of suspicion to the point where the cop may want to frisk or pat down the guy for his own safety. A good cop knows how to do this, and articulate it later on.

    To be clear though, and doggin can attest to this, anything a cop comes up with on these searches of evidentiary value is usually subject to a hearing known as a Mapp hearing, wherein these encounters /seizures are scrutinized closely and the cop has to show he didnt just randomly walk up to someone for no reason at all; He has to articulate from his point of view, and with legal basis, just how it was he came upon the contraband.

    If not, the evidense is tossed (even loaded guns) and the guy walks.

    You know the system works (i.e., these stops are scrutinized and rights are protected) when you are in a courtroom where everyone, EVERYONE...the Judge, the cops, the DA, the Defense Atty, the Court officers, the Clerk, the stenographer...the PERP....and the gallery...all know the guy had a loaded gun...and he walks out a free man anyway because the legal basis for the initial stop...or search was never properly established.

    It happens every day.

    The system is not perfect by far, but someone else here tell me another way of saving the lives of young minorities and possibly preventing countless others from witnessing senseless, horrific violence (that will scar them forever) on the very streets where they walk to school every day.

    -
    Last edited by 32green; 05-09-2013 at 02:15 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us