Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: NYPD is free again to stop people w/o cause - Appellate court OKs it !

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    NYPD is free again to stop people w/o cause - Appellate court OKs it !

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/court...p-frisk-policy


    NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a judge's order requiring changes to the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk program and removed the judge from the case.

    The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the decisions of Judge Shira Scheindlin will be stayed pending the outcome of an appeal by the city
    .


    I'll be calling this judge(s) .... and complain ... another visit by the FBI coming up (it happens 100% of time when I exercise my freedom of speech with federal judges/prosecutors)...does not stop me...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 10-31-2013 at 05:39 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Since the police admit these stops are absent any probable cause or reasonable suspicion, there is only one solution as of right now.

    Every person needs to have their cell phone or a video camera rolling when police confront them.

    The person needs to immediately invoke their 4th and 5th Amendment rights and have it on film.

    However, the truth is there aren't many people in America like me who routinely and expertly deal with police on a regular basis.

    In my videos I try to train people how to deal with police and know their rights and how to assert their rights.

    Video cameras are like kryptonite to police.

    If the courts and politicians wont stop this practice in New York than citizens need to arm themselves with video and audio recorders.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Since the police admit these stops are absent any probable cause or reasonable suspicion, there is only one solution as of right now.

    Every person needs to have their cell phone or a video camera rolling when police confront them.

    The person needs to immediately invoke their 4th and 5th Amendment rights and have it on film.

    However, the truth is there aren't many people in America like me who routinely and expertly deal with police on a regular basis.

    In my videos I try to train people how to deal with police and know their rights and how to assert their rights.

    Video cameras are like kryptonite to police.

    If the courts and politicians wont stop this practice in New York than citizens need to arm themselves with video and audio recorders.
    Really? The only solution? What if cops wanted to frisk your daughters? Or sons? Or young nieces or nephews? You gonna sit there with a video camera and allow it to occur? Really?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    I caught Jerry Rivers ("Gerrrraldo Rivera") saying "A firm hand is needed in NYC." and that he should know for being raised in Brooklyn.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Really? The only solution? What if cops wanted to frisk your daughters? Or sons? Or young nieces or nephews? You gonna sit there with a video camera and allow it to occur? Really?
    First of all, parents don't have the legal authority to consent or deny consent for searches of their children in a public place.

    Secondly, relax and read my post again.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Remember, folks, according to those fine people at Officer.Com,

    Quote Originally Posted by Shush
    Reading the court document on this - I would have to say that the judge missed this one. The officer was specifically assigned to this area because it was considered a high crime area. He sees a man walking along in attire that is typical of a thug culture*, displaying a pistol on his side. This is reasonable suspicion. He approaches the guy. The guy says "am i being detained?" The officer says no, but i want to speak with you.

    The guy refuses to cooperate.[emphasis in original]

    After refusal to cooperate, he eventually asks again if he is detained - to which the officer says yes.
    ..........
    I never said it was a crime to remain silent. I said his remaining silent increased the reasonable suspicion[emphasis by Falls]. High crime area, uncooperative person, displaying a firearm, - totality of circumstances. His silence added to the reasonable suspicion.
    ..........
    By him being uncooperative with the police, who are just trying to confirm he is not a lunatic, he has successfully created a precedent. Now, reasonable suspicion is no longer valid.
    A few things to be noted...
    "This is reasonable suspicion." "Reasonable suspicion (of what criminal offense) is sadly lacking. Anything can be "suspicious" wearing white after Labor Day can be 'suspicious'. Suspicion of it being a criminal offense, hardly.
    By this fine officer's reasoning, if you refuse to answer any questions put to you by the officer then it means he no longer needs reasonable suspicion of criminality to make detainment. It's either answer his questions freely, or be detained to answer them not so freely.

    *"Thug culture": The person referred to is one of our own and to hear him tell it, hardly a thug. Blue jeans, a brown hooded jersey, a beanie cap and gloves.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 11-01-2013 at 08:33 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    First of all, parents don't have the legal authority to consent or deny consent for searches of their children in a public place.
    Okay, so who does?
    Mom and Dad are taking their six month old bouncing baby boy out in a stroller and a cops rolls up saying "Stand aside, I want to frisk his Pampers." You're suggesting they must comply?

    What if it's a 14-year old teenage girl and a cop makes the same demand?

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    First of all, parents don't have the legal authority to consent or deny consent for searches of their children in a public place.

    Secondly, relax and read my post again.
    Cite.
    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)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Cite.
    He may have missed keeping up with this thread so I took the liberty of posting him a reminder.

    Dear onus,
    Your attention is kindly invited to the thread http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...39#post2000439 as a result of your post -
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    First of all, parents don't have the legal authority to consent or deny consent for searches of their children in a public place.
    Secondly, relax and read my post again.
    I think the, ahem... onus is on you to provide a citation.

Posting Permissions

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