Posted on 01/09/2013 9:07:25 PM PST by Zhang Fei
In March of 2012, several New York City residents sued the New York Police Department over alleged overreaches of its controversial stop-and-frisk policy.* The plaintiffs argued that the NYPD has a widespread practice of making unlawful stops on suspicion of trespass outside certain buildings in the Bronx, and asked the court for relief from the departments Trespass Affidavit Program (TAP). On Tuesday, they got their wish. Finding that NYPD officials showed deliberate indifference to the unconstitutionality of the relevant incidents, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin issued an injunction prohibiting unjustifiable stop-and-frisk actions outside of certain Bronx buildings.
This is obviously a blow to the NYPDs stop-and-frisk policy, and it possibly carries long-term implications for similar policies elsewhere. The TAP case is the first of three stop-and-frisk cases pending in Scheindlins court, and this injunction might indicate how she will eventually rule in the other two. Predictive value aside, the injunction is a powerful rebuke to systematic law enforcement excesses, and should be read and studied by anyone with even a passing interest in civil liberties.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
You keep pointing out true facts, but some just don’t WANT to get it. Pity, that. Thanks for your persistence.
If you don't like the lay of the land, don't live in a f*cking lawless hell hole, then. I think most of us can do the math on that, and we understand by instinct that free men cannot be ruled as though their default state were criminal.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Ben Franklin
If you cannot grasp this, you, sir, are the fraud, and don't belong among free men here on FR.
People live in these places because they can't afford anything else. Would I have preferred to live in the same building as Donald Trump? Sure.
And the whole Benjamin Franklin trope is getting old. He was trying to get the Patriots to revolt against the continued British rule so the colonies could expand further into Indian lands. Let's face it - the whole revolution wasn't such a bad thing, if only to instill a war-like spirit into North America ex-Canada, but in retrospect, it was about as necessary for liberty as teats on a bull. If it hadn't happened, we'd be a super-sized version of Canada or Australia, neither of which are what I'd call unfree. Franklin said some worthwhile things but let's not morph him into some kind of demi-god.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.