Trump will propose nationwide stop-and-frisk to address violence in black community Tonite on Hannity

[Smokin Joe]

Who is giving him this advice?.....sheeeeesh!

Mebbe he read it somewhere in the memoirs of Himmler? Beria? Kesago Nakajima? Maybe direct from Vlad, who was KGB....

[Smokin Joe]

Trump doesn't even have a basic understanding of the Constitution

Sure he does, "all 12 Articles"!

 

[Smokin Joe]

   What's NEXT?????



Suspend habeas corpus

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.".

Well, he could spin that as something Lincoln did...

[mystery-ak]

postponed to tomorrow night

[musiclady]

postponed to tomorrow night

Any reason given?

[Smokin Joe]

There is absolutely no reason to believe he won't at least try to imprison political dissidents......... that would be people who get in his way.

Scary times.....

It dawns on me that all you have to do to be thought 'nutso' is be correct twenty years before something actually happens...

Now about Alex Jones and those FEMA camps...

[mystery-ak]

Any reason given?

coverage of the riots in NC

[Smokin Joe]

Maybe we should no longer call it "stop and frisk" or "stop, question, and frisk", because it's important to understand what we're talking about.  Stopping and frisking those under "reasonable suspicion" is an important part of fighting crime.  aligncare is right that it saved lives.

The problem is, as implemented in NYC, it stepped on rights.

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Fourteenth Amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's the trifecta of unconstitutional!

[Fishrrman]

goodwithagun wrote above:
"Stop and frisk folks. It works. I know it works, the American people know it works."

Well, it certainly did work up in New York City back when Giuliani was mayor and gave the police department his blessings to get crime under control after the Dinkins years, which were a disaster.

That was one of the policies that literally turned that city around in its tracks and -- for a while -- gave it something of an American Renaissance.

Take away such policies, and we see the post-Giuliani New York of Comrade deBlasio.

Which would you prefer?

[musiclady]

coverage of the riots in NC

Ah....... makes sense.

[geronl]

The problem is, as implemented in NYC, it stepped on rights.

So does "No Fly, No Buy" but yet Trump supports it.

[Smokin Joe]

goodwithagun wrote above:
"Stop and frisk folks. It works. I know it works, the American people know it works."

Well, it certainly did work up in New York City back when Giuliani was mayor and gave the police department his blessings to get crime under control after the Dinkins years, which were a disaster.

That was one of the policies that literally turned that city around in its tracks and -- for a while -- gave it something of an American Renaissance.

Take away such policies, and we see the post-Giuliani New York of Comrade deBlasio.

Which would you prefer?

If New Yorkers want to live with those Local rules, well, that's up to them.

Out here in North Dakota, we don't need any more Federal Government imposed problems, and that is what we're talking about, not just New York City.

[sinkspur]

goodwithagun wrote above:
"Stop and frisk folks. It works. I know it works, the American people know it works."

Well, it certainly did work up in New York City back when Giuliani was mayor and gave the police department his blessings to get crime under control after the Dinkins years, which were a disaster.

That was one of the policies that literally turned that city around in its tracks and -- for a while -- gave it something of an American Renaissance.

Take away such policies, and we see the post-Giuliani New York of Comrade deBlasio.

Which would you prefer?

Michael Bloomberg instituted stop and frisk.  Not Guiliani.

DeBlasio favored it, too, but a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional.

[AllThatJazzZ]

Who is giving him this advice?.....sheeeeesh!

I remember his saying some months ago that he's his own adviser. He has educated himself by watching the Sunday shows.

[Suppressed]

Fourth Amendment:
Fifth Amendment:
Fourteenth Amendment:
It's the trifecta of unconstitutional!

You missed the parts about "unreasonable" and "without due process of law".

Reasonable suspicion has met the constitutionality requirement.  In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), SCOTUS said that a brief detention under reasonable suspicion, including a frisk for weapons, meets  constitutional requirements. 

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), the SCOTUS also found that requiring identification met the 4th and 5th Amendment requirements.

The power of the police to stop, question, and frisk under reasonable suspicion is something goes back to our Founding and before, as a part of English Common Law.  It's a very recent liberal view that questions it.

[Suppressed]

Michael Bloomberg instituted stop and frisk.  Not Guiliani.

DeBlasio favored it, too, but a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional.

@sinkspur

Nope.

Giuliani instituted it with the CompStat program of Bill Bratton soon after taking office in 1994.  Recall the whole "Broken Windows" strategy?

But Bloomberg took what Giuliani had used at a low level (<100,000/year) and expanded it to a half-million or more per year.

As for unconstitutionality, a federal judge can't overturn Terry v. Ohio.  What the federal judge did was say that the NYPD policy didn't meet constitutional muster.

[INVAR]

Obama wiped his a** with the Constitution, Trump will flush it.

And there you have it. 

Exactly.

[Smokin Joe]

You missed the parts about "unreasonable" and "without due process of law".

Reasonable suspicion has met the constitutionality requirement.  In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), SCOTUS said that a brief detention under reasonable suspicion, including a frisk for weapons, meets  constitutional requirements. 

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), the SCOTUS also found that requiring identification met the 4th and 5th Amendment requirements.

The power of the police to stop, question, and frisk under reasonable suspicion is something goes back to our Founding and before, as a part of English Common Law.  It's a very recent liberal view that questions it.

But that begs the question of what is reasonable suspicion?

What made you suspect that person? What is the reason?

That they live in a bad neighborhood?
Their skin color?
They were walking? ...walking too fast? ... walking too slow? ...in a hurry? ...waiting for someone?
They were pulled over for a burned out license plate light?

What is the reasonable suspicion that they, in fact, have anything on their person or in their vehicle which is illegal?

The reason 'stop and frisk' was shot down in New York is that the only reason necessary was that they were there.

I'm no fan of criminals, but I have lost too many rights to the Drug War being executed with (over) enthusiasm, including civil forfeiture. If I have a nice watch are the police going to take it? If I carry cash is that a goner? We have already seen this with vehicle stops and airport searches, and now do we want it on the streets?

Who is guarding the guards?

[Suppressed]

But that begs the question of what is reasonable suspicion?

What made you suspect that person? What is the reason?

That they live in a bad neighborhood?
Their skin color?
They were walking? ...walking too fast? ... walking too slow? ...in a hurry? ...waiting for someone?
They were pulled over for a burned out license plate light?

What is the reasonable suspicion that they, in fact, have anything on their person or in their vehicle which is illegal?

The reason 'stop and frisk' was shot down in New York is that the only reason necessary was that they were there.

Exactly right.

Stop and frisk isn't unconstitutional, per se.  It was unconstitutional in NYPD because of how it was being implemented.

Chief Justice Warren wrote of the requirements for a Terry frisk "...he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime."  The suspicion has to be "reasonable and articulable".

I'm no fan of criminals, but I have lost too many rights to the Drug War being executed with (over) enthusiasm, including civil forfeiture. If I have a nice watch are the police going to take it? If I carry cash is that a goner? We have already seen this with vehicle stops and airport searches, and now do we want it on the streets?

Who is guarding the guards?

No gymnast has a balancing act more complex than that of maintaining a republic.

The judicial branch (and the legislative branch) watch the executive branch.  As we saw in NYC.

+++

I share your concerns about overreaching law enforcement.  In fact, if I had to put a label on my political philosophy, I think it might come closest to classical liberalism or paleolibertarian.

But I recognize that a reasonable (there's that word again!) amount of power must be granted to law enforcement, and the courts have been very vigilant on limiting this.

[Norm Lenhart]

ironic twist (and cognitive dissonance) from Trump.....

You misspelled "overt act of shameless leftism"

Fixed it for you.

Edit: Shameless 'unconstitutional' leftism

[kevindavis007]

My fear is this, either under the Clinton or Trump administration, we will see more Federal involvement of local law enforcement.

[Smokin Joe]

My fear is this, either under the Clinton or Trump administration, we will see more Federal involvement of local law enforcement.

Well, the local and State LEOs have been increasingly militarized with the carrot of free 'gee whiz' military stuff. The natural next step is to Federalize them to have Obama's 'private army', whatever you want to call it. Or, as a certain minister of the Interior in another country did, forbid them from interfering with paramilitary detachments and, eventually the Secret State Police (Geheime Staats Polizei). The regular, uniformed police were, by decree, powerless to stop abuses by the paramilitary group, which had its own arrest powers, and were eventually purged of those who would not go along.

[Rivergirl]

This was Roody Julianni initiative in NYC where the black on black crime was over 2,000 murders a year.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

goodwithagun wrote above:
"Stop and frisk folks. It works. I know it works, the American people know it works."

Well, it certainly did work up in New York City back when Giuliani was mayor and gave the police department his blessings to get crime under control after the Dinkins years, which were a disaster.

That was one of the policies that literally turned that city around in its tracks and -- for a while -- gave it something of an American Renaissance.

Take away such policies, and we see the post-Giuliani New York of Comrade deBlasio.

Which would you prefer?

FREEEEEEDDOMMMMMMMMMM

So if I could convince you that gun control works should we do that too? Does the government have the right to believe that every firearm it finds in the hands of a citizen is carried illegally despite the 2nd amendment?
If I could convince you that socialism worked should we switch over to it?
Is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?

[Idaho_Cowboy]

You missed the parts about "unreasonable" and "without due process of law".

Reasonable suspicion has met the constitutionality requirement.  In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), SCOTUS said that a brief detention under reasonable suspicion, including a frisk for weapons, meets  constitutional requirements. 

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), the SCOTUS also found that requiring identification met the 4th and 5th Amendment requirements.

The power of the police to stop, question, and frisk under reasonable suspicion is something goes back to our Founding and before, as a part of English Common Law.  It's a very recent liberal view that questions it.

So is it the breathing or being black that is considered reasonable suspicion that someone has committed a crime?