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 most benefit of a city having “stop and frisk” is the substantial deterrent. When the word gets out that your city has “stop and frisk”, the bad guys disappear. Please! It is an obvious way to keep us safe —— deterrence!
Absolutely not. “illegal” guns are made so by illegal laws.
If a policeman walks up to me and says, “may I search you?” The only question you need to ask is, “why do you feel the need to do so?” If he can’t give you a solid reason for it, then you should tell him to have a nice day and be on your way. That’s how it works when you are a free citizen, as opposed to being a subject of a sovereign power.
If we didn’t have all of the laws trying to artificially circumvent the natural process of evolution, we wouldn’t have these problems.
The only thing that keeps these Criminals Alive is GUN CONTROL!!!
“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.”
Frisking is inherently unfriendly. What CAUSE does the officer have to stop and frisk? Chicago has severe restrictions on the possession of weapons. Which is in itself a violation of the resident’s civil rights. You want to further infringe on their rights. How exactly is that furthering safety? You want safety in Chicago, you let people arm themselves, and defend themselves. AS IS THEIR CIVIL RIGHT! You want law and order, try following the Constitution, not running police state BS. You frisk someone because you think they are carrying something illegal. You need a basis for that suspicion. Tell me how you plan on getting the basis for the search without touching them?
“The most benefit of a city having “stop and frisk” is the substantial deterrent. When the word gets out that your city has “stop and frisk”, the bad guys disappear. Please! It is an obvious way to keep us safe —— deterrence!”
Ah, so you want to give up a little freedom, in order to have security! I get it. Guess what? You deserve neither freedom nor security. And I will not let you screw up life for the rest of us who are willing and able to secure our own lives. Ben Franklin warned us about people like you over 200 years ago. You want to live like that, go somewhere else. Russia, maybe. Or China. You can live under tyranny, we just don’t want it here, and will not tolerate it.
OHIO PING!
Please let me know if you want on or off the Ohio Ping list.
Let’s Make Our Cities Safe - Use “stop and frisk”, made legal by 1968 Terry vs. Ohio Supreme Court Decision
07/12/2020 7:14:21 AM PDT · by mitchell001 · 25 replies
July 12, 2020 | Ralph Mitchell
Let’s urge our mayors to go back
No. Stop and frisk is tyranny. Might be legal, but it stinks. It’s pure redneck “you don’t beloooong heah” crap.
Are you contemplating an unconstitutional exploitation of a loophole?
Because Terry has led to much more than stopping “suspicious” people for weapons. It has been used for decades as a way of stopping people on a pretext of looking for weapons as a way of leading to broader and more intrusive searches. All an officer has to say is “I thought I felt drugs” or “I thought I felt a weapon”, and then they’re in your pockets. Anything after that is fair game.
So, here’s the thing.
The term “Stop and Frisk” was invented by the ACLU lawyers who were unhappy with Rudy G’s (very successful) “broken windows” approach to policing, and it was a very clever label. When one hears the term, one imagines a cop roughly grabbing a guy for no reason at all, and searching him out.
That was never the policy, and if it ever happened, it was, and is, a federal crime.
Here’s what the policy really was: the NYPD was directed to investigate even minor, nuisance types of crimes. The classic example was fare jumping. Instead of ignoring it, which had been the practice for generations, they actually stopped the person, based on the “reasonable suspicion” that a crime had been committed — usually because the cops had just seen the offence with their own eyes.
They then did a “Terry stop” — a quick pat-down for weapons, which had been approved by SCOTUS, and is still the law of the land. Maybe during the pat down, the found illegal drugs, weapons etc. They could also “run” the suspect to check on warrants, parole violations, etc.
Not surprisingly, the mooks stopped carrying guns and kept a lower profile in general, and crime plummeted.
But the key thing about “stop and frisK’ is that the name is a lie.
The police acted:
1) based on reasonable suspicion that a crime had been, was being, or was occuring
2) briefly detained the suspect, subject to Terry V. Ohio , and conducted a pat-down for weapons
3) finished the investigation, and either arrested the suspect on the basis of that investigation, or cited and released for the infraction that provided the reasonable suspicion for the encounter in the first place.
The actual policy was not in the least problematic, and was highly effective at reducing overall crime rates.
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.