Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Bloom'burg Spanked Again: Federal Judge Appoints Master Due to NY Mayor Overreach

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Bloom'burg Spanked Again: Federal Judge Appoints Master Due to NY Mayor Overreach

    “No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life,” the judge wrote. During police stops, she found, blacks and Hispanics “were more likely to be subjected to the use of force than whites, despite the fact that whites are more likely to be found with weapons or contraband.”
    Link to New York Times article, and through that, to decision here:


    https://www.facebook.com/GreidingerLegalWorks?ref=br_tf



    Last edited by Grapeshot; 11-25-2013 at 07:52 PM. Reason: fixed quote box

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    It's a terrible ruling.

    The correct ruling would have been to throw out the practice all together, and to declare such arbitrary stop-and-frisk searches as unconstitutional. The judge didn't do that, though: her only concern was the racial disparity.

    So, she appointed a monitor to oversee the program, and make sure that whites and Asians are searched proportionally with blacks and hispanics.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    {quote}“No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life,” the judge wrote. During police stops, she found, blacks and Hispanics “were more likely to be subjected to the use of force than whites, despite the fact that whites are more likely to be found with weapons or contraband.”[\quote]

    Link to New York Times article, and through that, to decision here:


    https://www.facebook.com/GreidingerLegalWorks?ref=br_tf



    {quote} and then {/quote} not \
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 08-12-2013 at 07:33 PM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    [QUOTE=The Donkey;1972430]
    “No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life,” the judge wrote. During police stops, she found, blacks and Hispanics “were more likely to be subjected to the use of force than whites, despite the fact that whites are more likely to be found with weapons or contraband.”[\quote]

    Link to New York Times article, and through that, to decision here:

    Why not just link to the NYT article? Waht - you want hits on a FB page?

  5. #5
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    OMG - " Profiling !" How do we avoid the appearance of " profiling" ?

    Of course ! Coming soon- to NYC Random sidewalk "sobriety" checkpoints.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    It's a terrible ruling.

    The correct ruling would have been to throw out the practice all together, and to declare such arbitrary stop-and-frisk searches as unconstitutional. The judge didn't do that, though: her only concern was the racial disparity.

    So, she appointed a monitor to oversee the program, and make sure that whites and Asians are searched proportionally with blacks and hispanics.
    You must have read a different case than me.
    VI. CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, the City is liable for the violation of plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In a separate opinion, I will order remedies, including immediate changes to the NYPD’s policies, a joint-remedial process to consider further reforms, and the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee compliance with the remedies ordered in this case...
    I thought when your Fourth Amendment right is violated the violation, in itself, is an unconstitutional act.

    I believe the court will now enter the penalty phase of the suit if damages are being sought. Once that is completed a final appealable order will be issued.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    OMG - " Profiling !" How do we avoid the appearance of " profiling" ?

    Of course ! Coming soon- to NYC Random sidewalk "sobriety" checkpoints.
    I was in NYC, stopped by a cop and asked to prove that I was white. When I asked "How?" he said "American-Indian eh?"

    Last time I was in NYC 3 cops said they were going to arrest me .. when I demanded that they try, they ran away.

    They know when they are full of it & nobody wants a crack in the jaw for that...

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    It's a terrible ruling.

    The correct ruling would have been to throw out the practice all together, and to declare such arbitrary stop-and-frisk searches as unconstitutional. The judge didn't do that, though: her only concern was the racial disparity.

    So, she appointed a monitor to oversee the program, and make sure that whites and Asians are searched proportionally with blacks and hispanics.
    Right.

    "Listen, your actions are violating your citizens' constitutional rights. Therefore, you're going to have to stop-and-frisk more whites."

    Meanwhile, one of the most detestable people on the planet had the following to say:

    Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg angrily accused the judge of deliberately denying the city “a fair trial” and said the city would file an appeal.
    I love how he manages to twist their being the defendant into somehow also being the victim.

    Sorry, Bloomy. It was "fair" that your trash government was given a trial at all. It was more than fair that justice wasn't done years ago by charging you and half the police criminally with violation of civil rights under color of law. Fair would be you rotting in a prison cell for the rest of your life.

    He said he hoped the appeal process would allow the current stop-and-frisk practices to continue through the end of his administration because “I wouldn’t want to be responsible for a lot of people dying."
    This man really is one of the vilest pieces of filth alive.
    Last edited by marshaul; 08-13-2013 at 04:16 AM.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Terry v. Ohio was wrongly decided, one reason is that it is so easily subject to abuse, and Bloomberg's New York City is Exhibit A. Realistically, though, one US District Court judge doesn't have the moxy to resolve the problems inherent in Terry.

    This Court was correct to point out that Bloomberg's obnoxious Stop and Frisk policies were lies designed to disguise the open secret that he was mis-targeting minorities because -- among other reasons, from his perspective & police excepted -- a black man cannot be trusted to safely carry a gun. Maybe more white people would have been stopped and frisked, and maybe this practice would have been more common in wealthy areas, but people in those areas would have flooded the mayor's office with angry calls if he did this, and the residents of these neighborhoods are Bloomberg's base. Stop and frisk can seem friendly and healthy if it is not directed at you, but crime is.

    The 14th Amendment's Due Process clause makes the 4th Amendment's protections against arbitrary search and seizure applicable to state and local authorities like the NYPD, which is one reason why it is important. But the Equal Protection clause is equally important, because, among other reasons, it assures that minorities are not discriminated against in their Second Amendment rights.

    OCDO claims that it is a civil rights organization and its membership often asserts that they are part of a civil rights movement. That means that its members should be protective of the civil and constitutional rights of minorities, including their rights under the Equal Protection clause. For the most part, I think it is. But for a very loud few, the open carry movement is just another way to display what regressive twits they are.

    This decision is a real defeat for Bloomburg, who made stop and frisk the centerpiece of his anti-crime approach. Bloomburg's brand of antigun statism is the polar opposite of the philosophy this community represents, and if this decision is upheld on appeal, that is just as much cause for celebration as the courts' pro-gun decisions leading up to Heller.

    PS. The Facebook page belongs to a lawyer who is interested in civil rights, and has participated in firearms related civil rights litigation. He now practices in Maryland, but anticipates expanding his practice into Virginia. Besides that, he is smart, handsome, humble, and follows interesting legal developments on Facebook. It is always a good idea to have a few firearms friendly lawyers in your state in your network. One more passive way to create a connection that may be useful in a bind is to find lawyers who you think could be helpful, save their links, and "like" their pages.

  10. #10
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    http://www.policestateusa.com/archives/45

    Bloomberg worried about living in a city where police need a reason to stop someone.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Black_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    On The Border in AZ
    Posts
    152
    Bloomberg seems to think that his money buys him Monarch status.

    Glad they knocked down the soda ban and I am glad they got this too.

    He is exactly what I read about in "Animal Farm" back in the day. Can't wait until he goes away.

  12. #12
    Regular Member jhfc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    164
    Maybe we'll be graced with his bid for the Presidency. /sarcasm

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Maybe I'm reading a totally different story, but from what I've read, the judge declared the NYPD's "Stop & Frisk" policy unconstitutional, not the act itself. The judge also said there's nothing wrong with the Stop & Frisk program (paraphrased, I don't have time to find the quote).

    Stop & Frisk isn't going away, but it should. The program is a violation of Constitutional rights. I haven't read the grounds of the case or the published decision. I'm sure there will be another court battle.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1424287

    link to opinion - no FB visit required ....

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    The purpose of this Opinion (the “Remedies Opinion”) is to determine what remedies are appropriate in these cases. I address both cases in one Opinion because the remedies necessarily overlap. Each requires that the NYPD reform practices and policies related to stop and frisk to conform with the requirements of the United States Constitution. I stress, at the outset, that the remedies imposed in this Opinion are as narrow and targeted as possible. To be very clear: I am not ordering an end to the practice of stop and frisk. The purpose of the remedies addressed in this Opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection.
    When you read the remedies you will see there is nothing left but its name (stop and frisk). The judge emptied the cooking jar.

    And the worse part for NY is many cops will have to wear video cameras. No more he says she says.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1424287

    link to opinion - no FB visit required ....
    What's the matter? You have a problem with free enterprise?



    Another example of creeping socialism.

    But hey, don't let that stop you from friending a good consigliere: as the Bloomberg experience illustrates, commeth the revolution, even socialists will sometimes require the services of a good firearms friendly lawyer:

    https://www.facebook.com/GreidingerLegalWorks?ref=br_tf

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    It's complicated, but this ruling almost certainly means that Bloomberg's aggressive and unconstitutional "stop and frisk" campaign is over.

    http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/11/federal-appeals-court-upholds-stop-and-frisk-ruling.php


    Bloomberg has not stopped trying to impose his brand of conservative communitarian paternalism on the rest of the USA.

    This sets him back considerably.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    It's complicated, but this ruling almost certainly means that Bloomberg's aggressive and unconstitutional "stop and frisk" campaign is over.

    http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/11/federal-appeals-court-upholds-stop-and-frisk-ruling.php


    Bloomberg has not stopped trying to impose his brand of conservative communitarian paternalism on the rest of the USA.

    This sets him back considerably.
    Yep of the two major parties there is no liberal one, there are two conservative (maintaining the status quo of increasing government intrusion) parties.......
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    It's complicated, but this ruling almost certainly means that Bloomberg's aggressive and unconstitutional "stop and frisk" campaign is over.

    http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/11/federal-appeals-court-upholds-stop-and-frisk-ruling.php


    Bloomberg has not stopped trying to impose his brand of conservative communitarian paternalism on the rest of the USA.

    This sets him back considerably.
    Bloomberg is NOT a conservative. He is a "progressive."


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Bloomberg is NOT a conservative. He is a "progressive."


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    All such labels are rather imprecise.

    Most historians label Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as the major examples of progressive politicians.

    What do you see as the commonality?

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    You use a label. I refute your label, and you tell me that they are imprecise. Then don't use the labels. Duh.

    Conservative has a meaning to almost all who read the label. That decidedly does NOT include folks who try to ban large sugary drinks. Almost everyone who sees someone try that crap would call him a progressive.

    meh to your homework assignment. If you have a point to make using those two progressives, do your own homework. I ain't interested.

    I'll just say it again and move on: Bloomberg is not a conservative. He is a progressive.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    You use a label. I refute your label, and you tell me that they are imprecise. Then don't use the labels. Duh.

    Conservative has a meaning to almost all who read the label. That decidedly does NOT include folks who try to ban large sugary drinks. Almost everyone who sees someone try that crap would call him a progressive.

    meh to your homework assignment. If you have a point to make using those two progressives, do your own homework. I ain't interested.

    I'll just say it again and move on: Bloomberg is not a conservative. He is a progressive.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    I learned about your definition of "progressive" on the Glen Beck show a few years back.

    What I learned is that "progressive" has become a reactionary curse-word for everything that is different from what people like Glen Beck like.

    Roosevelt was a "progressive" because he broke up the trusts.

    Wilson was a "progressive" because he advocated income tax, public education and what became the first social safety net programs.

    Of the two, I would have preferred Teddy Roosevelt because he was a barrel of intelligence, action and fun, and Wilson was a racist.

    Many "conservative" people will get annoyed with you if you call Teddy a "progressive" because they like his style, and do not think it too nice if you posture yourself as a patriot while making fun of the guy up on Mt. Rushmore. Roosevelt was an open carry fan. Then again, Roosevelt was also a militarist.

    I rather liked both Wilson and Roosevelt's "progressive" views. Neither, I suspect, would have approved of Bloomberg's big gulp ban.

    Major "progressive" ideas include giving women the right to vote and civil rights. I am also rather fond of that kind "progress."

    Would we be better off with a "regressive" in any of these areas?

    Nixon, the "conservative" was about expanding government to combat crime and did his best to roll back the 4th Amendment. He gave us the expansion of executive privilege and modern regulatory state. Reagan, "the conservative" brought us the basis for much of our present unbalanced budgets. Bush, "the conservative" brought us domestic surveillance, Iraq and Medicare Part D.

    But you "ain't interested." You've "moved on" again. "Meh."

    One problem with firing behind you while you continuously run away is that you always keep missing.

    Yoo hoo! We're still here! And we'll catch you around!

  23. #23
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    I learned about your definition of "progressive" on the Glen Beck show a few years back.

    What I learned is that "progressive" has become a reactionary curse-word for everything that is different from what people like Glen Beck like.
    that and Mark Levin wrote a book and now everyone throws the word statist around....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  24. #24
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    http://www.policestateusa.com/archives/45

    Bloomberg worried about living in a city where police need a reason to stop someone.
    lol I just went to that website. The titles are pretty funny

    Edit: I find them funny because they are over the top. While the stories may be true, it's the descriptive words they use like "uniformed hit squad" that make me laugh.
    Last edited by Primus; 11-26-2013 at 01:51 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    I learned about your definition of "progressive" on the Glen Beck show a few years back.

    What I learned is that "progressive" has become a reactionary curse-word for everything that is different from what people like Glen Beck like.

    Roosevelt was a "progressive" because he broke up the trusts.

    Wilson was a "progressive" because he advocated income tax, public education and what became the first social safety net programs.

    Of the two, I would have preferred Teddy Roosevelt because he was a barrel of intelligence, action and fun, and Wilson was a racist.

    Many "conservative" people will get annoyed with you if you call Teddy a "progressive" because they like his style, and do not think it too nice if you posture yourself as a patriot while making fun of the guy up on Mt. Rushmore. Roosevelt was an open carry fan. Then again, Roosevelt was also a militarist.

    I rather liked both Wilson and Roosevelt's "progressive" views. Neither, I suspect, would have approved of Bloomberg's big gulp ban.

    Major "progressive" ideas include giving women the right to vote and civil rights. I am also rather fond of that kind "progress."

    Would we be better off with a "regressive" in any of these areas?

    Nixon, the "conservative" was about expanding government to combat crime and did his best to roll back the 4th Amendment. He gave us the expansion of executive privilege and modern regulatory state. Reagan, "the conservative" brought us the basis for much of our present unbalanced budgets. Bush, "the conservative" brought us domestic surveillance, Iraq and Medicare Part D.

    But you "ain't interested." You've "moved on" again. "Meh."

    One problem with firing behind you while you continuously run away is that you always keep missing.

    Yoo hoo! We're still here! And we'll catch you around!
    Your friend Teddy was a racist, him and Wilson's ideologies were very similar.

    Your term of applying both progressive to government grasps of power and then calling not doing that regressive is just plain silly.

    Progressive and liberal were both terms that were hijacked by those with more socialistic ideals.

    Your willingness to buy the states version of history is on you. It did not happen the way you say it did no matter how many times you say it did.

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    that and Mark Levin wrote a book and now everyone throws the word statist around....
    LOL....yea that's were it came from ..... the statist Mark Levin called someone else a statist so everyone who uses that word must be followers are of the same set of Mark Levin....what utter hogwash.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 11-26-2013 at 10:01 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

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
  •