Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50

Thread: Routine Police "Stop and Frisk" Tactic Ruled Illegal

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Routine Police "Stop and Frisk" Tactic Ruled Illegal

    A police state in New York makes life difficult. This ruling balances thing just a little bot:

    Bronx Residents Accosted by NYPD Win Landmark Court Ruling Deeming "Stop and Frisk" Tactic Illegal
    A federal judge has ruled that New York City police are not allowed to routinely stop pedestrians outside of private residential buildings in the Bronx. The stops are part of the so-called Clean Halls program, which has prompted allegations of police harassment by some residents who say they are being accosted outside of the buildings in which they live. Previous data on the New York Police Department’s "stop-and-frisk" policy has shown African-American and Latino men make up a hugely disproportionate share of those stopped.
    Police respond: "This will cost lives!"

    Stop-And-Frisk: Ray Kelly Warns NYC Mayoral Candidates That End To NYPD Program Will Cost Lives
    — Police Commissioner Ray Kelly had ominous words for any mayoral contender looking to change the city's most controversial crime-fighting tactics.

    Ending stop-and-frisk or dismantling the city's expansive counter-terrorism efforts would put the city at risk, Kelly said during a rare interview Thursday night at the 92nd Street Y.

    “The things that we’re doing here are working and I would hate to see them change significantly," said Kelly, warning that, "People will die as a result."
    Well, **** ** **, then.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 01-14-2013 at 09:46 PM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Law abiding folks will die because they can't fight back when the bad guys ignore NYC's draconian gun laws.

    Random warantless groping does not save lives. It just allows a police state to enforce its anti-Liberty laws using anti-Liberty techniques.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Of course, the areas where these abuses occur, are mostly in poor, minority communities.--modern day form of slave trade, IMO.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Of course, the areas where these abuses occur, are mostly in poor, minority communities.--modern day form of slave trade, IMO.
    Yes, I can recall a gentleman complaining he was being frisked several times a day. I mean, really, do we have to rely on the courts?

  5. #5
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Yes, I can recall a gentleman complaining he was being frisked several times a day. I mean, really, do we have to rely on the courts?
    There is an alternative to relying on the Courts. The problem is you can't get enough people together to collectively, passively, buck the System.

    The Courts are the default for Americans not wanting to take the time to collectively put feet to the ground, and really make an impact.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    A police state in New York makes life difficult. This ruling balances thing just a little bot:

    Bronx Residents Accosted by NYPD Win Landmark Court Ruling Deeming "Stop and Frisk" Tactic Illegal


    Police respond: "This will cost lives!"

    Stop-And-Frisk: Ray Kelly Warns NYC Mayoral Candidates That End To NYPD Program Will Cost Lives


    Well, feel me up, then.
    As stated in Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford which was quoted in Terry v Ohio, no right is held more sacred or more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of all individuals to the control and possession of the their own persons, free from all restraint and interference unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Cops can't give themselves authority.

    I do wonder, though. For all their suspicionless stops-and-frisks, why hasn't the practice been stopped before this point? I'm thinking that any criminal defense attorney worth two cents would have any evidence from a suspicionless stop-and-frisk tossed out, meaning the cops woulda found this practice fruitless. And, I'm thinking that by now a conviction arising from a suspicionless stop-and-frisk woulda made it to the appeals court level. Know what I'm thinking? The cops weren't finding much, if anything at all, during their stops-and-frisks. I think the Commissioner might be lying.

    I wanta see his stats on overall number of suspicionless stops-and-frisks and number of arrests arising therefrom. I think we'd find out pretty quick whether he's lying or how far he's stretching the truth.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    As stated in Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford which was quoted in Terry v Ohio, no right is held more sacred or more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of all individuals to the control and possession of the their own persons, free from all restraint and interference unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Cops can't give themselves authority.
    Policy give the officers the authorization to stop-and-frisk, not the officers themselves. Let's be clear about that fact. It isn't as if a group of officers just decided, on their own, t stop-and-frisk so-called "suspicious" individuals.

    I do wonder, though. For all their suspicionless stops-and-frisks, why hasn't the practice been stopped before this point? I'm thinking that any criminal defense attorney worth two cents would have any evidence from a suspicionless stop-and-frisk tossed out, meaning the cops woulda found this practice fruitless. And, I'm thinking that by now a conviction arising from a suspicionless stop-and-frisk woulda made it to the appeals court level. Know what I'm thinking? The cops weren't finding much, if anything at all, during their stops-and-frisks. I think the Commissioner might be lying. *snippers*
    It wasn't stopped because it was not--as much as I understand-- challenged in court. How many of those individuals who are stop-and-frisked, can afford to fight this in court. Most likely, the vast majority of them are relying on a public defender.

    They seem to have justified their policy--or whatever you call it--by:

    A federal judge ruled in January 2013 that the New York Police Department’s practice of stopping people suspected of trespassing outside private buildings in the Bronx was unconstitutional. The decision appeared to be one of the more significant federal rulings during the Bloomberg administration on the Police Department’s use of stop-and-frisk tactics.

    The case was narrowly focused on police stops in front of the private residential buildings enrolled in the Trespass Affidavit Program, or TAP, in the Bronx. Under that program, which includes several thousand residential buildings, property managers asked the police to patrol their buildings and to arrest trespassers. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...isk/index.html
    Apparently, the stop-and-frisk policy--or whatever it is--has not been completely ruled not Constitutional.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 01-14-2013 at 08:55 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  8. #8
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Well, feel me down then ...

    It's hilarious that an innocuous phrase got censored. Up or down; no difference?

    The NY ACLU has these documents:

    NYCLU Lawsuit Challenges NYPD Arrest of Brooklyn Woman for Filming Stop-and-Frisk

    NYCLU Legal Victory Ends NYPD Practice of Keeping Innocent New Yorkers’ Information in Stop-and-Frisk Database

    Judge Finds NYPD Routinely Makes Unconstitutional Street Stops Outside Clean Halls Buildings Across the Bronx

    So, as it turns out, Bloomberg's Goon Squad was stopping all kinds of people, feeling them closely (assault) then entering personal information into a database for an indefinite period. Sounds a lot like the obsolete East Germany.

    Gee, I thought Erich Honecker was dead.

  9. #9
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    Gee, I thought Erich Honecker was dead.
    Nope...he lives on in the hearts and minds of socialists (they have no souls) and control freaks everywhere.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Policy give the officers the authorization to stop-and-frisk, not the officers themselves. Let's be clear about that fact. It isn't as if a group of officers just decided, on their own, t stop-and-frisk so-called "suspicious" individuals.

    It wasn't stopped because it was not--as much as I understand-- challenged in court. How many of those individuals who are stop-and-frisked, can afford to fight this in court. Most likely, the vast majority of them are relying on a public defender.

    They seem to have justified their policy--or whatever you call it--by:

    Apparently, the stop-and-frisk policy--or whatever it is--has not been completely ruled not Constitutional.
    Hahahahahaahahahahaa!! And, she doesn't think the people above the street cop are not cops themselves. Nevermind that any cops genuinely supportive of 4A rights can nullify the policy by ignoring it. I don't recall any cops objecting to the policy when it was much broader a couple years ago. Not until a police lieutenant came forward and validated the assertions of a few community or civil rights groups a couple years ago.

    In Terry v Ohio, SCOTUS expressly acknowledged the practice was occurring and that black communities were complaining about it. Think about that for a moment, folks. Cops usurped authority and were stop-and-frisking people long ago already. And, it was Terry v Ohio that slapped down the practice of stop-and-frisking people at cops's discretion by requiring RAS. So, its not like this is an area of law where things are foggy. Its clear the practice of discretionary stop-and-frisks were invented by cops in violation of the 4A and one of the most protected rights, was shot down by SCOTUS, and then recently re-usurped.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Policy give the officers the authorization to stop-and-frisk, not the officers themselves. Let's be clear about that fact. It isn't as if a group of officers just decided, on their own, t stop-and-frisk so-called "suspicious" individuals.


    A policy which violates the Constitution is not justification for violating the Constitution.

    If a police department has a policy that says anyone holding signs at a protest event is going to be tased and their signs taken from them, any officer that follows that policy is still violating the Constitution and is liable for his actions.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    How to enforce the New&Improved draconian gun laws?

    Golly, without S&F or something like the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Stasi), how will those new gun control laws be enforced?

    Eight bullets in a pocket? Who's to know?

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    Golly, without S&F or something like the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Stasi), how will those new gun control laws be enforced?

    Eight bullets in a pocket? Who's to know?
    Oh, I'm sure the cops will pretty quickly start Terry Stops to check for magazine capacity, just like they did in CA about 12031(e)-checks for load-chamber violations. Give 'em a couple years and they'll start asking for express statutory authority to check any gun for magazine capacity, bypassing Terry requirements for RAS.

    And, it won't take cops long to start patting pockets looking for that spare magazine or those loose bullets, "because, they're associated with a gun."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Hahahahahaahahahahaa!! And, she doesn't think the people above the street cop are not cops themselves. Nevermind that any cops genuinely supportive of 4A rights can nullify the policy by ignoring it. I don't recall any cops objecting to the policy when it was much broader a couple years ago. Not until a police lieutenant came forward and validated the assertions of a few community or civil rights groups a couple years ago.

    In Terry v Ohio, SCOTUS expressly acknowledged the practice was occurring and that black communities were complaining about it. Think about that for a moment, folks. Cops usurped authority and were stop-and-frisking people long ago already. And, it was Terry v Ohio that slapped down the practice of stop-and-frisking people at cops's discretion by requiring RAS. So, its not like this is an area of law where things are foggy. Its clear the practice of discretionary stop-and-frisks were invented by cops in violation of the 4A and one of the most protected rights, was shot down by SCOTUS, and then recently re-usurped.

    I understand what you're stating.

    So, you're asserting that Terry v. Ohio is applicable in this case?

    Let's read what SCOTUS stated...

    The question:

    Question

    Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?



    The Answer:

    In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." The Court found that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_67
    I see, so the Terry Stop is Constitutional, as long as the officer has an Reasonable--articulable of course--suspicion that safety is an issue during the investigation of suspicious behavior.

    Basically, depending on how, what, when, where, why, the stop-and-frisk is occurring, the officers are engaged in a Constitutional act. It appears, in the NY case, the officers didn't meet that Reasonable standard, or wasn't able to articulate their reasoning behind the stop-and-frisk.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 01-15-2013 at 08:51 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  15. #15
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    A policy which violates the Constitution is not justification for violating the Constitution.

    If a police department has a policy that says anyone holding signs at a protest event is going to be tased and their signs taken from them, any officer that follows that policy is still violating the Constitution and is liable for his actions.
    I didn't state otherwise.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I understand what you're stating.

    So, you're asserting that Terry v. Ohio is applicable in this case?

    Sorry, babe. Your numerous examples of intellectual dishonesty, evasions, and self-contradictions means I don't answer your questions or discuss things with you.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Sorry, babe. Your numerous examples of intellectual dishonesty, evasions, and self-contradictions means I don't answer your questions or discuss things with you.
    That's all I require, to substantiate what I stated in my post.

    It was nice chatting with you, BTW. We should do it more often.

    Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching individuals act as if the Constitution, and what is, and is not constitutional, holds some definitive end.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 01-15-2013 at 09:03 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Routine Police "Stop and Frisk" Tactic Ruled Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Sorry, babe. Your numerous examples of intellectual dishonesty, evasions, and self-contradictions means I don't answer your questions or discuss things with you.
    Wisdom.

    I wish more posters around here would exhibit that wisdom.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  19. #19
    Regular Member trevorthebusdriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    592

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by trevorthebusdriver View Post
    Great graphic. I especially liked the stat about 88% of stop-and-frisks resulted in nothing.


    It occurs to me that the Russian Gulag method would probably be effective here. I'm referring to a tactic used by Soviet prison camp inmates. A few of them understood that a bureaucracy runs on rules. Bureaucrats are highly allergic to deviating from the house rules. It opens the bureaucrat to bad performance reviews, punishment, and there is always a subordinate who is looking to step up.

    The prisoners noticed that a formal written complaint by a prisoner had to be investigated; it was a bureaucracy rule. So, several inmates got together and started writing complaints. More inmates joined in. So many that at the height of the campaign, inmates were divvying up the list of potential complaint subjects. They tied up so much man-power at the prison that the bureaucracy came to a halt, doing little else except investigating complaints, literally. Eventually, a complaint was misrouted to a Politburo member. Boy, that got lots of attention. By the time it was done, the warden was retired early, conditions improved, a few inmates were transfered, and at least one inmate was released.

    Basically, the tactic is to make the bureaucracy follow its own rules; use the bureauracy's own rules against it.

    Imagine if 200,000 stop-and-frisk detainees wrote formal complaints. NYPD internal affairs would be tied in knots.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    Routine Police "Stop and Frisk" Tactic Ruled Illegal
    The very fact that this title has an excuse to be written about any city in the USA should make every citizen of our nation scared, sad, and righteously indignant.

    How the HELL was this allowed for even one second in the first place?

    I thought NY was bad enough with their old gun control laws. Between the new ones and this, I am just beside myself. WTF man.. WTF?????

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    The very fact that this title has an excuse to be written about any city in the USA should make every citizen of our nation scared, sad, and righteously indignant.

    How the HELL was this allowed for even one second in the first place?

    I thought NY was bad enough with their old gun control laws. Between the new ones and this, I am just beside myself. WTF man.. WTF?????
    Its a sign of the deterioration. The situation is actually pretty grim.

    Some "big picture" examples: (Reader note: don't read these just before bedtime. If you do, I'm not responsible for your lost sleep.)


    We have a senate that hasn't passed a budget in two years. Doesn't sound so bad. Easy to point fingers at Harry Reid. But, evaluate it against how things should be running in a smooth and correctly operating government--its really, really bad. Who in their right mind thinks its OK to operate the government (or any busines or family checkbook) without a budget? This is a huge red flag that government spending is not even close to being under control. Its also a huge red flag about the mentality of those responsible regarding what they think they can get away with and their regard for the constitution. Their political careers and holding onto power are more important than responsibly operating the government for the rest of us. Just go back and read up on the last ten years of the Roman Republic and how those politicians ignored the Roman constitution--this is the period just before Rome slid into the tyranny of the emporers.

    The fedgov is functionally bankrupt. Thus the massive deficits (more spent than income). And, nobody is doing anything about it! All the howling and fearmongering about the so-called sequesters is smoke and noise about a roughly 2% piece of government spending.

    The Speaker of the House admitted congress doesn't read the bills before passing them. This is disastrous. The bills are written by lobbyists who are unaccountable to the voters. How skewed is this!?!

    The fedgov was happy to institute the ruinous program called Obamacare despite the unpopularity. The Republicrats didn't vote for it, but neither did they get up and walk out like happens in the Knesset or Poland's parliament. And, many if not all state governments are going along with it.

    The mere existence of DHS and TSA show totalitarianism is just around the corner. Writers were already using the term soft tyranny three years ago. Just look at that word homeland. Goebbels would have promoted the propagandist who invented that word.

    A few years ago we actually had some so-called leaders using the term jobless recovery to describe the hoped-for reversion from the biggest economic disaster since 1929. There are no adjectives to describe the callousness of pretending a recovery while millions remained out of work. This is the same bunch who yesterday were crowing about the stock market hitting new highs, as though indexes for a few dozen companies reflecting the activity of monied investors has much of anything to do with your unemployed neighbor who does odd jobs to feed his family.

    The government has racked up some $55T (that's trillion with a t.) in debts and obligations as of a year ago and the number is climbing. There is no possible interpretation of the necessary and proper clause or the general welfare clause that authorizes such massive indebtedness, nor the taxation that would be needed to pay it off. This is beyond disastrous. Even the military has said the national debt is a national security issue. And, they're more right than they might know. All it would take to really cause problems is a downgrade in USSA's credit rating. This is because a downgrade would mean higher interest rates for new debt. We're already spending billions on interest; raise the interest and suddenly the fedgov can only borrow less, while paying more to do it. And, we've got another fiscal cliff/debt ceiling coming in late March or early April.

    If you really want to lose sleep, look into the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve (aka the Fed) and the federal debt. The Fed has been printing money out of thin air like mad since late 2008, and it hasn't caused a genuine resurgence. Meantime, the fedgov is now running spending over $1T a year, supported by massive borrowing. The whole game is completely unsustainable. It will collapse. There is no if, only when. Bernanke is doing everything he can to push the when further into the future. Just do a little research into this, enough to grasp the full import and consequences. I guarantee you won't sleep for a week.

    Its bad, folks.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-06-2013 at 12:27 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Of course, the areas where these abuses occur, are mostly in poor, minority communities.--modern day form of slave trade, IMO.
    And it is Democrats that are running the show up there, imagine that! Just like the actual slave trade -- Democrats wanted to keep slavery and Republicans fought to abolish it! It is amazing how much black Americans have forgot in 150years. You would think they would all be Republicans, but they are all members of the party that wanted to keep them enslaved.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I understand what you're stating. <snip>
    No, you do not. If you did you would have not responded to his post at all.

    But, you did employ a classic liberal tactic. Citizen stated no such thing, you did, and then you attributed your views and words to Citizen.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Routine Police "Stop and Frisk" Tactic Ruled Illegal

    There is no such concept in law as "reasonable articulable suspicion that officer safety is an issue."

    The way it works, to correct the horrible misstatement above, is that IF the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, then the officer may lawfully detain the person. During that detention, the officer may temporarily take the firearm for officer safety.

    Folks, don't let a particular poster twist words in a way that mangles the intended meaning of the law.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
    Last edited by eye95; 03-14-2013 at 06:28 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •