Skip to comments.Let's Make Our Cities Safe - Use "stop and frisk", made legal by 1968 Terry vs. Ohio Supreme Court Decision
Posted on 07/12/2020 7:14:21 AM PDT by mitchell001
Let's urge our mayors to go back to Law and Order, or elect a new mayors who want to keep us safe without fear. The Police should always have the upper hand with Community Policing. If necessary, implement "stop and frisk", which allows police to check suspicious people for illegal guns. The Supreme Court says "stop and frisk" is constitutional according to the 8 to 1 Terry vs. Ohio decision. Something has to be done. Are we waiting until an innocent child is killed by stray bullets?
The only Practical defense Good citizens have against dangerous gangs like BLM and Muslim terrorists and regular assaults and batteries will not be taken from them, not without fighting. Thats pretty obvious nowadays. Stop and frisk is not acceptable, period.
Why is stop and frisk not acceptable? We already have young kids killed in the cross-fire. Dead kids are not acceptable.
Make resisting a felony and provide cops with their batons and black jacks.
A swift rap on the head of a resister will save his life
“suspicious people” & “illegal guns”
Define your terms. What is an illegal gun? My reading of the 2nd Amendment says there is no such thing. My state has finally recognized that, and open carry is once again recognized as constitutional. IMO, EVERYONE should be carrying firearms. What exactly is a suspicious person? Is it anyone carrying a gun? A black person carrying a gun? An old white guy carrying a gun? What makes them suspicious? What about them would a cop be able to recognize as suspicious? Sagging pants, a red or blue bandana? A thousand dollar suit and a snap-brim fedora? Wads of cash? How do you even know they’re carrying a gun?
Personally, I’ve already spent all the time I care to spend living in a police state.
We live - or are supposed to- in a free society. Where people are free to walk the public streets without having to answer or submit to police state tactics. ( and your crossfire children wouldnt be any safer if a policeman were to try to frisk you, certainly he can find something more helpful and beneficial - and safer- to do). The means dont reach anywhere near the desired end. Best,
We need leaders who are unabashedly tough on crime. Like this woman...
Anyone know who she is?
(Does she know who she is?)
Police should be checking on strangers in a friendly way. The Rudy Guilinani “stop and frisk” success in NYC is legendary. Let’s get control of law and order. No more senseless killing of children. Chicago should try “stop and frisk” to prove that people’s lives matter.
So you want save the children? We already have untold government meddling to save the children how has that worked out? Why layer on another program that weakens our liberties, or do you believe
an emboldened Chicago government will stop, or even start, with frisking black people?
So long as those communities do not cooperate with the police by naming the shooters they will continue to bear the price of gang violence. Thats assuming that the politicians are not using the violence to win elections.
There are better waves to save young black lives in Chicago. Lets start by disarming the teachers unions. Then we can move onto dismantling a welfare system that destroys families.
You think it is strangers who are shooting up Chicago and killing Children? The assailants are not unknown.
Cities in the US are not safe.... They gave the militants free rein and the toothpaste won’t go back in the tube..
when will the leaders get an understanding what they did and who they did it with.... they turned anarchists loose on our cities and anywhere else they went... turned them loose to loot.. destroy businesses.. burn buildings and cars.. even take over areas. and NO ONE.. NO FORCE EVIDENT.. It went on for days... and days... while we watched in shock at home...
BLM... peaceful? NO! give them room and silence and they are as bad as the rest of them..
No one is safe any more... the couple protecting their home from the mobs the cities let loose to go after anyone... they protected their home and then they are the guilty... took the gun...
I’m sorry for being so dense... but I don’t get anything the other side does and I don’t get the pandering to that other side!!
Stop and frisk is already used a lot by the police in the circumstances described in Terry v. Ohio. If you’re talking about just stopping and frisking people with no reason, Terry v. Ohio says the police can’t do that.
It is not acceptable these days because way too many elected officials side with the thugs and not the common citizen. Time to purge the leftists from government in November and elect people that actually care about America.
I grew up in an era when it was NAZIs that were portrayed as the "show us your papers" bad guys. That was anti-freedom of movement. That image was reinforced in my lifetime by the Stasi. Note: they were not stopping black and brown gang bangers. They were stopping white freedom lovers.
So what to do? I recognize that stop and frisk is effective. I also recognize that it could be used against me or my children/grandchildren someday. I equate it with being tyrannical crime reduction matter. As a freedom loving conservative I have given myself an out. There is another solution. Here's the big leap: renew 2a rights in American cities. Is it not true that where there has been stop and frisk (American cities, most notably, NYC in the past) that they have the toughest gun control measures to insure that only the bad guys have guns and law abiding citizens do not? Even the playing field. Spend energy on allowing law abiding citizens to carry weapons to defend themselves instead of fighting for stop and frisk. Fighting for stop and first is inherently an argument that aligns with gun control.
My 2a stance is so rapid that I believe that anyone who is not in currently prison has a God given right to defend himself. There should be zero gun control laws, as in "shall not infringe". That includes background checks, since non-incarcerated criminals by pass them anyway and will always have a weapon if they choose.
True 2a rights would eliminate render stop and first impotent. To drive the point home, imagine the effect of 2a rights for all on stop and frisk: Police officer sees someone suspicious. He stops him. Puts the gang banger up against the wall and frisks. "Oh, what do we have here, a fully automatic Uzi? Fine weapon you have their son. I was thinking about getting one myself. You can go along your merry way, you are not in prison, so you can carry anything you like. But I'm going to come down on you like all hell if you use it in a crime. Just remember Grandma has one too, and I won't do a damn thing about her using it to defend herself. If you want to use it against your fellow gang bangers, go right ahead. Clean this neighborhood up a little bit. Just don't let me see you do it."
Okay, that last part of this is the racist in me. I really don't think their lives matter. But in a more perfect union, I think crimes need to be committed first before someone is investigated and detained by authorities. And it shouldn't be a crime for anyone to carry a weapon of their choosing (including fully automatic weapons - without the ubiquitous tax stamp from the federal government). It should not be a crime to just carry a weapon. It is a greater offense when a weapon is used in the commission of a crime. That's already the law. Wait until a crime is committed and then lock them up. We just need to get Rats out of the courts and the DA's office to make it stick.
Don't let the wrongs of Rats be corrected by another wrong, namely stop and frisk, even if it is effective. Stick to the constitution. Let granny defend herself. Get rid of Rats and lock up criminals that use weapons in the commission of a crime.
Please stop that idiocy. Any place in the U.S. that needs stop and frisk tactics to prevent children from being shot in crossfire should be de-annexed from the country and surrounded with a sealed border.
Correct, a “Terry Stop” requires probable cause.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but maybe it has something to do with "innocent until proven guilty."
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.