Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nickcarraway

What surprises me is that 90% number. That means 10% of stops resulted in a summons or arrest?.

The question is were they making up stuff, or were they legitimate summons and arrests? Because if they are legitimate, any kind of sting that arrests 1 in 10 seems like to me is a good sting.

If 1 in 10 results in an arrest or summons, is that an unreasonable search and seizure?


3 posted on 08/12/2013 9:31:13 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DannyTN

“Sting?”

While I frown theologically on stings, because that’s to play Satan (I say let Satan take the heat, don’t volunteer ourselves) I don’t see “Stings” here... color me puzzled?


4 posted on 08/12/2013 9:33:02 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: DannyTN

As a radio program host said this morning, over the period in question, they stop 8 million but they catch 700,000+ bad actors.


9 posted on 08/12/2013 9:52:38 PM PDT by Postman (Flies get too litle credit. Boehner gets too much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: DannyTN; HiTech RedNeck

I don’t see where there were “sting” operations involved here. As I see it, the police would see a thug looking individual walking down the street. However, other than he looks like a thug, he isn’t drunk or on drugs, he isn’t on a be on the lookout list or suspected of committing a crime, and isn’t causing any problems. But the police stop him, frisk him, and find contraband. It all goes back to probable cause. I suspected that eventually, a judge would call the NYPD on it. Am I wrong here?


13 posted on 08/12/2013 10:00:07 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: DannyTN

There is no justification for “stop & frisk”; when Rudy Giuliani wanted to clean up NYC, he simply told the cops to enforce even the minor laws. Often the dirtbag you arrested for urinating on the sidewalk turned out to have warrants for more serious crimes outstanding; it was effective, unquestionably legal, and racially neutral.


15 posted on 08/12/2013 11:21:46 PM PDT by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic war against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: DannyTN
If 1 in 10 results in an arrest or summons, is that an unreasonable search and seizure?

You're just dying to give up your rights aren't you? Read the 4th amendment. There has to be probably cause just to get a warrant, the person and place to be searched must be named and what they are looking for must be named also. Yes, stopping people at random and searching them is a blatant violation of the 4th amendment.

BTW, there is nothing in the constitution that gives LEOs the right to search you, your car or your home or business simply by saying they had probable cause. Probable cause is for getting a warrant, not conduction a search, but we gave up that right many years ago by not fighting that type of BS.

16 posted on 08/13/2013 1:03:01 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson