The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: sinkspur on September 21, 2016, 08:09:04 pm
-
Trump will propose nationwide stop-and-frisk to address violence in black community Tonite on Hannity
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs5lKIfXgAAm_On.jpg)
-
That'll bring in the black votes, huh?
-
Trump will propose nationwide stop-and-frisk to address violence in black community Tonite on Hannity
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs5lKIfXgAAm_On.jpg)
Uh....is that going to be a stop and frisk for everybody, despite any lack of suspicion of wrong-doing? Or of just the thuggy looking folks (Holder and Obama people)? Inquiring minds want to know.
Trump really knows how to win friends, and influence voters....doesn't he.
-
Trump is an idiot.
Imagine being stopped and frisked in the middle of nowhere Wyoming. lol
-
Probable cause and due process anyone? Or does Trump count being black as probable cause for search and seizure?
-
Probable cause and due process anyone? Or does Trump count being black as probable cause for search and seizure?
Yet another ironic twist (and cognitive dissonance) from Trump.....that he proposes renewing a policy that relies on profiling....even while courting (sucking up to) the African American community.
He has brass ones, I'll give him that. Only problem is....
that brass is tarnished.
-
Obama wiped his a** with the Constitution, Trump will flush it.
-
Once again, stepping on the constitution.
I'm not opposed to stop and frisk if the local governments support it but I am vehemently opposed to stepping all over the state and local governments.
-
Who is giving him this advice?.....sheeeeesh!
-
Who is giving him this advice?.....sheeeeesh!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/crutch999/HILLARY-CLINTON-WINK-570_zpsou4wdrcw.jpg)
-
It will be amusing to see how his supporters walk this back. :pondering:
Something along the lines of "he's an idiot but he's our idiot" I suspect...
-
Once again, stepping on the constitution.
I'm not opposed to stop and frisk if the local governments support it but I am vehemently opposed to stepping all over the state and local governments.
Trump doesn't even have a basic understanding of the Constitution
-
Trump doesn't even have a basic understanding of the Constitution
4th and 10th amendment issues aside. Its a 1 size fits all solution to a primarily urban problem.
-
Trump doesn't even have a basic understanding of the Constitution
And...doesn't want one, apparently.
-
4th and 10th amendment issues aside. Its a 1 size fits all solution to a primarily urban problem.
As usual, he proposes a wide, all encompassing big government (national) solution by the federal government....when it should remain a local or state issue. He's showing his true colors more and more every day in every way.
-
It will be amusing to see how his supporters walk this back. :pondering:
Something along the lines of "he's an idiot but he's our idiot" I suspect...
No doubt they will double down on it and tell us what a brilliant 6th dimensional chess move it is. They don't know when to fold even if they haven't got two cards in the same suit and a deuce in the hole.
-
Probable cause and due process anyone? Or does Trump count being black as probable cause for search and seizure?
My guess is that he does.
A couple of Trump quotes.....
“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”
“Laziness is a trait in blacks.”
He's a real gem, that Donald is. **nononono*
btw, he's also incoherent. His speech is more jumbled than any human being I've ever met. His words make NO sense.
-
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.".
-
As usual, he proposes a wide, all encompassing big government (national) solution by the federal government....when it should remain a local or state issue. He's showing his true colors more and more every day in every way.
That's the crux of the matter.
He wants government to do everything. And he considers government to be himself.
This is a scary person. Dangerous.
-
Uh....is that going to be a stop and frisk for everybody, despite any lack of suspicion of wrong-doing? Or of just the thuggy looking folks (Holder and Obama people)? Inquiring minds want to know.
Trump really knows how to win friends, and influence voters....doesn't he.
When he starts frisking everyone, be sure to wear clean underwear when you go to the grocery, etc.
-
When he starts frisking everyone, be sure to wear clean underwear when you go to the grocery, etc.
:silly:
-
That's the crux of the matter.
He wants government to do everything. And he considers government to be himself.
This is a scary person. Dangerous.
@musiclady
All he has known all his life is giving orders and it happens. He absolutely does think it will be the same as president. He will do what he wants as he has always done and if anyone complains, he will bankrupt them forever. And, since he will be able to order the FBI/Justice Dept. to arrest people, I think he will do that. The jail will be full of reporters who question him, except for Hannity, the showman of Trump.
-
I predict that Hannity will declare this a wonderful, inspired idea and congratulate Mr. Trump on having come up with it.
-
btw, he's also incoherent. His speech is more jumbled than any human being I've ever met. His words make NO sense.
I don't know why people can't see that - he gets a total pass not being able to communicate as well as a 6th grader. I personally think he had/has a learning disability and don't think he can read well which is why he says he doesn't read much. Remember, he said he learns the news from watching TV shows and he related that specifically to the world situation - he watches the Sunday shows to find out about what is happening in the world. I would bet he has people read for him.
-
That's the crux of the matter.
He wants government to do everything. And he considers government to be himself.
This is a scary person. Dangerous.
Considering the dire and dismal state we're in re: our "choices" in this election...
it looks like a very scary future we're facing.
-
When he starts frisking everyone, be sure to wear clean underwear when you go to the grocery, etc.
Lol! I always do (mother's advice). You just never know what might happen along the way (these days).
-
Stop and frisk won't fix the problem because it won't fix broken black families or the climate of resentment democrats have built over the past 50 years.
-
I predict that Hannity will declare this a wonderful, inspired idea and congratulate Mr. Trump on having come up with it.
Fox should make Hannity take a leave of absence if he is going to continue to campaign for Trump and make political ads....Fox is now Trump Campaign Central
-
@musiclady
All he has known all his life is giving orders and it happens. He absolutely does think it will be the same as president. He will do what he wants as he has always done and if anyone complains, he will bankrupt them forever. And, since he will be able to order the FBI/Justice Dept. to arrest people, I think he will do that. The jail will be full of reporters who question him, except for Hannity, the showman of Trump.
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.....
-
I don't know why people can't see that - he gets a total pass not being able to communicate as well as a 6th grader. I personally think he had/has a learning disability and don't think he can read well which is why he says he doesn't read much. Remember, he said he learns the news from watching TV shows and he related that specifically to the world situation - he watches the Sunday shows to find out about what is happening in the world. I would bet he has people read for him.
I don't doubt that he has a learning disability. But there's also something jumbled inside his brain in addition to any reading issues.
I know very few sixth graders as incoherent as he is. And over the years, I have known a LOT of elementary kids.
There's something basically wrong with his brain.
-
Considering the dire and dismal state we're in re: our "choices" in this election...
it looks like a very scary future we're facing.
It is, no matter what the outcome of the election.
The two choices (major parties) are both absolutely despicable.
-
I don't know why people can't see that - he gets a total pass not being able to communicate as well as a 6th grader. I personally think he had/has a learning disability and don't think he can read well which is why he says he doesn't read much. Remember, he said he learns the news from watching TV shows and he related that specifically to the world situation - he watches the Sunday shows to find out about what is happening in the world. I would bet he has people read for him.
You know...come to think of it....there's one very good reason why I had Trump's 'number' from Day One. He reminds me somewhat of an ex of mine who also never read, yet could spout and spew statistics and ""facts"" convincingly as if he read and studied every day. I used to watch him in amazement as he fooled our friends and his co-workers (baffled them with BS) and I used to think....this guy really could sell ice cubes in Hell....he's that good at spreading the manure. He was that good at making it up as he went along and pulling facts and statistics out of 'you know where'. And yes, his chosen career was salesman.
-
Fox should make Hannity take a leave of absence if he is going to continue to campaign for Trump and make political ads....Fox is now Trump Campaign Central
It has been pretty much for the duration of Trump's campaign since he won the nomination officially. I imagine Sean had trouble holding back his adoration until that happened. Tingle up his leg indeed.
-
It has been pretty much for the duration of Trump's campaign since he won the nomination officially. I imagine Sean had trouble holding back his adoration until that happened. Tingle up his leg indeed.
I wonder if he'll even be able to get a job selling pencils on the street after he's made such an abject fool of himself with his shameless Trumplove.....
-
I hate to interrupt this self perpetuating hate-fest with actual information, but in New York City stop and frisk saved lives -- that is until the Liberals went to court to stop the program.
I think probably what Trump will speak about tonight (since there is no link – as is sinkspur's typical MO – no one knows yet what Mr. Trump will actually propose) is to try the same type of program in hotspots like Chicago and maybe do something positive to save black lives.
I think small-town Wyoming is probably safe from stop and frisk, BTW. ^-^
Do you people ever listen to yourselves. Your overreaction to rumors regarding Mr. Trump is more a function of your hate, than of reality. Just my humble opinion.
-
Federalizing local police forces? What could possibly go wrong with that?
:whistle:
-
When he starts frisking everyone, be sure to wear clean underwear when you go to the grocery, etc.
Not a chance if they are gonna frisk me they are could be in for a surprise...
-
It will be amusing to see how his supporters walk this back. :pondering:
Something along the lines of "he's an idiot but he's our idiot" I suspect...
I'd hazard his supporters will be fully supporting this. Because, in their hearts, the just know that only the bad people will be stopped and frisked. Trump supporters will be exempt, of course.
---
Edit: Too late. Trump supporters are already doing this.
-
Trump has never seen a big-government program that he didn't just love. Instead of worrying about the national debt and paring down government, he only seeks to increase it, like every good little liberal, New York or otherwise.
Therefore, logical folks would have to conclude from his past comments and recent policy statements, that regarding stop and frisk, he will also propose that it be 'nationwide' and therefore, yet another federal government program. Of course, per usual, logic escapes the left and the liberals that support and promote Trump.
And how else, but nationwide, could a program be put in place for stop and frisk for various "hot spots" around the country? It has already been struck down as unconstitutional in New York. So apparently, Trump is unaware of that fact.
-
Stop and frisk folks. It works. I know it works, the American people know it works. I'm gonna build a police force. The most beautiful police force you've ever seen. That police force is gonna have great hands. Great hands folks. Like mine. Just like mine. And let me tell you something. They are gonna stop and they are gonna frisk. It's gonna be a beautiful thing. Nobody trains a police force like me. Nobody. :police:
-
I hate to interrupt this self perpetuating hate-fest with actual information, but in New York City stop and frisk saved lives -- that is until the Liberals went to court to stop the program.
I think probably what Trump will speak about tonight (since there is no link – as is sinkspur's typical MO – no one knows yet what Mr. Trump will actually propose) is to try the same type of program in hotspots like Chicago and maybe do something positive to say black lives.
I think small-town Wyoming is probably safe from stop and frisk, BTW. ^-^
Do you people ever listen to yourselves. Your overreaction to rumors regarding Mr. Trump is more a function of your hate, than of reality. Just my humble opinion.
Why am I not surprised you would come here defending a police state tactic championed by Democrat Michael Bloomberg and continued by Communist Bill deBlasio. I guess it shows the authoritarian/anti-liberty/anti-Constitution bent crosses both sides of the aisle.
It once again shows the divide is not R versus D but liberty versus authoritarians.
-
I hate to interrupt this self perpetuating hate-fest with actual information, but in New York City stop and frisk saved lives -- that is until the Liberals went to court to stop the program.
I think probably what Trump will speak about tonight (since there is no link – as is sinkspur's typical MO – no one knows yet what Mr. Trump will actually propose) is to try the same type of program in hotspots like Chicago and maybe do something positive to say black lives.
I think small-town Wyoming is probably safe from stop and frisk, BTW. ^-^
Do you people ever listen to yourselves. Your overreaction to rumors regarding Mr. Trump is more a function of your hate, than of reality. Just my humble opinion.
This is not a rumor. Trump already held his town hall and this was leaked.
Are you aware that stop and frisk was declared unconstitutional?
But Trump doesn't care about that. He has no clue how city and state governments work, nor what the federal government can and can't do. He obviously never took a basic civics course any time in his life.
This is getting a lot of play on cable channels and it will kill what tiny momentum Trump had with the black community.
It appears Conway has figured that Trump can't do much with blacks or Hispanics and his only hope is with the non-college educated white men. He's still running behind Romney with those ole boys, so why not throw them some additional red meat?
-
I hate to interrupt this self perpetuating hate-fest with actual information, but in New York City stop and frisk saved lives -- that is until the Liberals went to court to stop the program.
I think probably what Trump will speak about tonight (since there is no link – as is sinkspur's typical MO – no one knows yet what Mr. Trump will actually propose) is to try the same type of program in hotspots like Chicago and maybe do something positive to say black lives.
I think small-town Wyoming is probably safe from stop and frisk, BTW. ^-^
Do you people ever listen to yourselves. Your overreaction to rumors regarding Mr. Trump is more a function of your hate, than of reality. Just my humble opinion.
Would you mind explaining how you think this is Constitutional either in NY or WY?
-
I'd hazard his supporters will be fully supporting this. Because, in their hearts, the just know that only the bad people will be stopped and frisked. Trump supporters will be exempt, of course.
Or....maybe they're imagining that they will get to be the ones stopping folks and asking "Vere are your papers!". Next thing ya know....Trump will be proposing a National ID ...yet another big government idea that someone else (some other liberal) thought up.
:pondering:
-
For those who may have forgotten:
The fourth amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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.
Seems clear to me, but hey if we can just save one life let's get rid of it and go live in fascist hell hole. It's for the children...
-
Or....maybe they're imagining that they will get to be the ones stopping folks and asking "Vere are your papers!". Next thing ya know....Trump will be proposing a National ID ...yet another big government idea that someone else (some other liberal) thought up.
:pondering:
The TSA pat down, coming to a street corner near you.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-emmnSx-ehwg/T8YUsOoJtGI/AAAAAAAAJ6w/abXuZRBpdN0/s1600/1authoritytopedestriansCOLCP.jpg)
-
He wants government to do everything. And he considers government to be himself.
This is what many of his supporters who would support the expansion of the size of the federal government under a Trump administration never seem to consider. They may cheer it on now. But Trump wont be there forever and what they support now could come back to haunt them someday. That, and there is no guarantee Trump will love them forever, either
This is generally speaking. As far as this issue is concerned, I will have to hear it from his own lips. So far, as far as I can tell, it's still a rumor. But if it is confirmed, conservatives should oppose this even if the stated intentions are good
-
Poor pretzels............must be getting tough to accomplish those twists away from sanity.
-
Why am I not surprised you would come here defending a police state tactic championed by Democrat Michael Bloomberg and continued by Communist Bill deBlasio.
Yes, it was championed by Bloomberg. It was, however, successfully implemented in the mid-90s under Rudy Giuliani and his police commissioner, Bill Bratton. And largely touted by Giuliani. It was just expanded greatly under Bloomberg.
I guess it shows the authoritarian/anti-liberty/anti-Constitution bent crosses both sides of the aisle.
It once again shows the divide is not R versus D but liberty versus authoritarians.
Agreed.
But note that stop-and-frisk has never been found unconstitutional, per se. It was only the NYPD policy that was found to be unconstitutional, based on racial bias.\
Their revised policy is more in line with Terry, stating that the officer must have "individualized, reasonable suspicion that the person stopped has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or penal law misdemeanor." No longer can it just be because someone is alone in a high-crime area, for example.
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.
Edited to add: I am not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
-
Probable cause and due process anyone? Or does Trump count being black as probable cause for search and seizure?
If they run this like the TSA, they'll only shake down fishbelly white grandmothers.
-
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....
-
Trump doesn't even have a basic understanding of the Constitution
Sure he does, "all 12 Articles"!
**nononono*
-
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...
-
postponed to tomorrow night
-
postponed to tomorrow night
Any reason given?
-
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...
-
Any reason given?
coverage of the riots in NC
-
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!
-
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?
-
coverage of the riots in NC
Ah....... makes sense.
-
The problem is, as implemented in NYC, it stepped on rights.
So does "No Fly, No Buy" but yet Trump supports it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Obama wiped his a** with the Constitution, Trump will flush it.
And there you have it.
Exactly.
-
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?
-
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.
-
ironic twist (and cognitive dissonance) from Trump.....
You misspelled "overt act of shameless leftism"
Fixed it for you.
Edit: Shameless 'unconstitutional' leftism
-
My fear is this, either under the Clinton or Trump administration, we will see more Federal involvement of local law enforcement.
-
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.
-
This was Roody Julianni initiative in NYC where the black on black crime was over 2,000 murders a year.
-
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?
-
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?
-
So is it the breathing or being black that is considered reasonable suspicion that someone has committed a crime?
Trump spoke about this on Fox this morning. He used a gun as an example of what a person might have. Said this would allow the police to find out who has the guns and take them away. Because "if you don't have a gun then you cant go shooting people". I may have the exact quote wrong but thats what he said.
-
Trump spoke about this on Fox this morning. He used a gun as an example of what a person might have. Said this would allow the police to find out who has the guns and take them away. Because "if you don't have a gun then you cant go shooting people". I may have the exact quote wrong but thats what he said.
Yeah, the two amendment was never his specialty.
-
Yeah, the two amendment was never his specialty.
:silly:
You crack me up! Thanks. I can't tell you how desperately I need the yuks in this horrible election cycle.
@Idaho_Cowboy
-
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...
Don't be so certain that FEMA camps don't exist nor that UN troops are already settled, prepared and waiting...we live in very scary times.
-
Don't be so certain that FEMA camps don't exist nor that UN troops are already settled, prepared and waiting...we live in very scary times.
Well, Alex has been talking about UN troops and camps for about twenty years.
Evil can hide in plain sight if people won't believe their eyes.
I have seen UN vehicles on trucks, being transported, just as I saw a trainload of battle-damaged Abrams tanks going east in Utah during the first Gulf War. If we are waiting for government to tell us the truth, it will be a long wait.
In the meantime, one of the Hallmarks of this administration and the Clintons, too, was that the outrageous nature of the acts they have perpetrated, coupled with complex inter-relationships which all sound like a crazy theory hide behind the fact that an accounting of those acts sounds like an over-the-top movie plot, and that accounting is easily ridiculed as a "conspiracy theory" for the lazy to enable their continued somnolence in full emotional comfort.
Sometimes a conspiracy theory is just a conspiracy.
'Nothin' to see heah, move along please...FEMA camps, yeah, ain't that some crazy sh*t? ... Boy the stuff they come up with! (shakes head) I wonder what's next, Aliens in Area 51? Ha Ha....'
-
Trump spoke about this on Fox this morning. He used a gun as an example of what a person might have. Said this would allow the police to find out who has the guns and take them away. Because "if you don't have a gun then you cant go shooting people". I may have the exact quote wrong but thats what he said.
"if you don't have a gun then you cant go shooting people"..back, either. You'd have to be crazy to not be packing in some of those neighborhoods.
-
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?
:thumbsup:
-
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?
I really don't give a darn who instituted it. It's unconstitutional. There are other ways, Constitutional ways, to eradicate crime. Use those.
-
I really don't give a darn who instituted it. It's unconstitutional. There are other ways, Constitutional ways, to eradicate crime. Use those.
Liberals always support gun confiscation. Liberal voters will try electing anyone that confiscates guns or promises to. Liberal voters believe THEY will keep THEIR guns though.
Such voters are the very threats to America the founders warned of as the enemy within.
-
Is this tonight or was this last night?
-
Twitter says this is postponed again?
-
Liberals always support gun confiscation. Liberal voters will try electing anyone that confiscates guns or promises to. Liberal voters believe THEY will keep THEIR guns though.
Such voters are the very threats to America the founders warned of as the enemy within.
Exactly. Just because "our guy" does it doesn't make it right.