New York City's "stop and frisk" policy allows police to search anyone coming out of a building if they have "reasonable suspicion" that the person is likely to commit a crime. Approve?
This is when I get upset with my own party. Come on republicans! You are cherry picking the constitution just like the libtards!
Two words: Probable Cause
There are rules for reasonable suspicion as I said police officers have the reasons printed in their log books and must identify which listed reason caused the frisk.
Yes because all measures should be taken to protect people and if a simple pat down would keep more people safe, no harm done. Although, like liberty5 said, you would have to define what suspicious and worthy of a pat down is. There would need to be some rules or guidelines for that.
Depend on what qualifies as 'reasonable suspicion'
A pat down is not a search again if an officer feels a weapon during a pat down or frisk then and only then can the officer search only where the weapon is felt...any contraband found if a weapon is not there cannot be used to convict the suspect.
And it isn't racial profiling it just happens that more crime is in minority neighborhoods it's called crime mapping and hot spots to make the police more efficient and to protect more people. That is why more police are in those neighborhoods
It's for officer safety and it has improved safety for citizens and the reason minorities get frisked more is because crime occurs in minority neighborhoods here so we are putting more police there not to be racist but to stop crime naturally more minorities will be stopped if they commit more crime
The officer can only search where the weapon is felt if no weapon is found and the officer finds say drugs doesn't matter you cannot be arrested fined or anything...if a weapon is found everything is fair game.
Misleading question: they aren't allowed to search a stop and frisk consist only of a pat down for officer safety, the guidelines to reasonable suspicion are on police log books and a reason must be officially logged...
If the officer feels a weapon then and only then can the officer search
So, boys and girls, can you spell "stop and frisk?"? It's spelled R-A-C-I-S-M.
Riiight. That may be the case on this issue by a small margin, but on the whole, the Democrats hate individual liberty with a fiery passion. Do you believe in an income tax?- if you do, then you don't believe in liberty. Period. The entirety of the liberal mindset is pro-state, anti-individual.
strong evidence, and it was evident., otherwise no. They could ask questions, but without a pesky warrant...
I'd hope they'd have evidence first..They're not to just arrest anyone..I'm sick of this "All cops are bad" mentality that's going on now. Just because there are a few bad ones out there, and the media glorified them, doesn't mean all of them are. Quit believing their hype. I'd agree if they had
I thought I was innocent first?
Both should be protected! It's not one or the other. Last time I checked both the 2nd and 4th amendments were still in the constitution.
I'm very disappointed in the so called republicans on this. No probable cause beyond looking suspicious? No warrant? We have this little thing we call the Bill of Rights people! I'm so tired of ignorant people giving away our most basic rights. Maybe they don't wan them but I do!!!!
Republicans- "we want the government out of our lives! Unless its to frisk us randomly as they see fit."
You mean like if barrel-chested Muslims walk out the building? Or some black dude walking to a nice car? This is ridiculous and will turn into racial warfare (I was just giving examples, so don't be offended).
He voted for Mitt Romney.
the sad part is that I don't even really dislike you, cowboy. I've even liked some of your comments. I just don't understand why you have to be so scornful when it comes to the topic of new york. it doesn't matter if you don't like new york city, but do you have to say such rude things?
new yorkers who were more fortunate spent their days after the storm going door to door helping people and bringing them supplies. the fact is, the reason sandy caused such an uproar is because new york is one of the biggest, most heavily populated cities in the nation and a lot goes on here.
and we're doing fine helping each other out over here. I lost power for 9 days and our friend lent us their generator and another let me stay at their house for a week when it got really cold. and those are just little favors.
So...we want to take the guns away but not search people that could possibly be a threat?
Although I would not be thrilled if this new policy meant camping out in front if shopping malls and searching half the people walking by.
Police officers already have this right basically... To search or question anyone acting suspicious.
reasonable suspicion:is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' " it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts"
There is a lot of case law(court decisions) which clarify this term. It can't be just "anything"
There were no concert benefits by millionaire Liberals when half of Utica IL was destroyed by a tornado. But its ok. They rebuilt without them.
You're so tough.
apparently more Democrats believe in liberty than Republicans. lol
Climbtrad Wasn't the KKK member, Robert Byrd, that filerbusted the Civil Rights Act in 1957? Take a history course.
Captainbstring really? Your logic is the reason the shooting in new town occurred without any warning, cause people like you generalize criminals by what they look like.
Good question but we all know that will not be the case. The hooded youth is the one who will be picked on and have there rights violated.
Actually captain dipshit we gave ourselves the TSA by not making ourselves heard in our government. The Terrorist have no role in our government it's in the constitution you can read it.
The policy is probably intended to deal with the scourge of "office crawlers." They sneak into upscale offices and grab phones and purses left lying around. Usually dressed as delivery people. I think if a guy in a FedEx uniform walks out of an office but has no truck, I say he's fair game.
tj - No crime has been committed, MIGHT commit is the wording.
Much as I try to understand the justification for the random frisking of citizens, I can't shake the discomfort. It seems Government-sponsored profiling. Will a black man, hoodie-wearing youth, white woman pushing a stroller, brief-case wielding Wall Street type, all be equal opportunity friskees?
Reasonable suspicion is used when they have no obvious reason or evidence to detain and search you.
Damn near anything can and will be used as reasonable suspicion especially if they have a hard-on for you.
And even if there is none, they'll make up something in order to justify their violation.
Was posted to counter the " actually per capita crime is lower in urban areas"
It is an amount of suspicion by a prudent law enforcement officer that a crime my have been committed. It allows for a frisk which is a crush and feel of a person and their immediate grab area to ensure a weapon isn't present. A search is a quest for evidence, and is more intrusive.
What in the hell is "reasonable suspicion"? Talk about arbitrary!
A frisk is not a search because it isn't a quest for evidence, which is why it requires merely a reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. This policy is just a formalized version of what has always been law anyhow.
That is an odd and silly response. I conduct frisks and searches incident to arrests for work, of course I prefer conducting a frisk then taking an unsafe risk. The post was about the GOP split on this issue, the Dems support frisks more then the GOP, and I'm an Ind. anyhow.
Far too many ways to abuse it. Would end up doing more harm than good.
I'm pretty sure that this goes against the whole "unwarranted search and seizure" thing in that old piece of paper called the Constitution.
The TSA thugs ARE terrorists by the very definition of the word. They are enemies of liberty and should be resisted. It doesn't take an intelligent person to really be honest with themselves and KNOW that the Founders would not have approved.