Posted on 02/17/2020 3:43:21 AM PST by Kaslin
Wouldn’t carrying a Big Gulp be reasonable suspicion to stop and search in Mike’s world? That’d be a lovely question to ask him directly.
If a rat tells something close to the truth, they are done. The dem party will eat them alive. He will still be a player because of his money, but I think he will keep falling just short of the 15% required to get delegates.
When he first instituted it, I thought it was completely unconstitutional. Still do.
I’m all for aggressive policing but at least have reasonable cause or an outstanding warrant.
Agree that Blowme’s cowardice to defend his gestapo tactics is what is doing him in. Mr. “throw them against the wall” Toughguy is now Mr. “I’m sorry. I’ve evolved” Mary Poppins.
Nobody even seems to care about that angle: Stop and frisk is unconstitutional. If you declare martial law, then have at it - but don’t just do it as business as usual.
The ends only justified the means to many people because THEY weren’t the target.
[In this case, I could less whether Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk was a good idea or not (it certainly worked), what should matter to us, ONLY, is that the black community HATED the policy, and that gives us leverage (huge leverage) to weaken Bloomberg.]
[There is no prize for 2nd place. You beat the heck out of them with everything you can.
It’s not about the facts, it’s about the perception and Trump understands this. I wish more people on our side understood that.]
You either believe in the Constitution or you do not - there is no “Noble Cause” clause in it.
While it’s nice to let the Dems “eat their own”, and their reasoning has more to do with “racism”, this is one of the few times they are right to criticize and I want a President who will not be afraid to state the obvious and politics be damned.
We have libertarians greatly exaggerating the problems with stop and frisk. As if small inconvenience and bruised egos were the equivalent of blacks being lynched, conservative students suffering outright censorship, or Republicans being denied equal protection of the police. NYC cops haven’t been a significant source of civil liberty problems since the days of Tammany Hall.
I think the criticism has to do with the way he expressed the frisk, not the frisk itself.
I’d be more concerned with the goa or the nra for not coming to the defense of new yorkers. Did they simply turn a blind eye to this overreach?
Further, Bloomberg appears to have supported it for some problematic reasons, which also suggest he didn’t understand the policy run under his administration.
1) he didn’t institute it.
2) the policy includes reasonable cause.
3) Bloomberg clearly doesn’t understand the policy.
I agree with this premise.
Frisking was way down the list, and was only done in a relatively small portion of “stop, question, and frisk” stops. By the time police got to the frisking point, the proportion of arrests was pretty high.
Heather McDonald had some very good articles which should give you a better explanation of what the policy actually was - or you could talk to some NYC non-criminals. Beginning with Giuliani, police were moved out into their neighborhoods and got to know the locals. It wasn’t random police just spotting people walking down the road and frisking them.
No question he did the right thing re. stop and frisk, but he leaves himself wide open to be criticized for apologizing to gain favor with the black community. Go get ‘em Trump.
1. Yes he did. He was the mayor.
2. No it doesn’t.
3. Totally agree.
“When he first instituted it, I thought it was completely unconstitutional. Still do.”
Agree. For all those supporting Bloomberg on S&F, would you support it in your own neighborhood?
1) he inherited it from Giuliani. Deblasio mutated it I to something else, at which point it was thrown out by the court.
2) it absolutely included reasonable cause. It’s an explicit step, and the only reason the policy was allowed - especially in NY.
“Stop and frisk is unconstitutional.”
Unfortunately while my own knowledge of the constitution is not great I do have a copy and I do look up things so I estimate that my own limited knowledge exceeds that of ninety percent or more of Americans, many of whom can “quote” things that appear nowhere in the document. I believe your comment on stop and frisk is correct but I would say that well over fifty percent of the population believes that whatever they personally favor is constitutional and whatever they disapprove is forbidden by the constitution.
You’re right; people feel the end justifies the means. The Fourth Amendment right to privacy is thrown out the window if it gets guns off the streets, and it is urban thugs being targeted.
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.