- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Stop & Frisk policies: Giving up rights "to save lives".
Posted on 3/12/18 at 4:08 pm to LSU2a
Posted on 3/12/18 at 4:08 pm to LSU2a
quote:
and then support the infringement of the forth amendment
You're assuming there was no reason for a particular individual to be stopped and questioned. There is no possible way for you to know this.
2
Posted on 3/12/18 at 4:13 pm to Numberwang
This is the worst kind of attitude. Don’t ever give up your rights or anybody else’s. Just bc someone doesn’t look like you doesn’t mean they are not protected by the constitution.
Posted on 3/12/18 at 4:14 pm to LSU2a
quote:
I'm sick of the partisan bickering and the binary thinking that exist here.
I agree, however you don't seem to see that the "binary thinking" here is the assumption that the basis for stopping someone is based on the color of their skin. There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this position.
Posted on 3/12/18 at 4:17 pm to JoinTheResistance
quote:
Just bc someone doesn’t look like you doesn’t mean they are not protected by the constitution
That assumption is racist.
Posted on 3/12/18 at 4:18 pm to Dale51
quote:
You're assuming there was no reason for a particular individual to be stopped and questioned. There is no possible way for you to know this.
I'm not assuming anything. The court clearly found that in many cases of stop and frisk there was no acceptable reason for the police to stop and search the individuals in question. Google: Floyd v. City of New York
Posted on 3/12/18 at 4:19 pm to Dale51
quote:
I agree, however you don't seem to see that the "binary thinking" here is the assumption that the basis for stopping someone is based on the color of their skin. There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this position.
I never made such a claim. Stop assuming everyone that has a similar stance on an issue have the same set of opinions.
Posted on 3/12/18 at 4:42 pm to LSU2a
quote:
I'm not assuming anything. The court clearly found that in many cases of stop and frisk there was no acceptable reason for the police to stop and search the individuals in question.
But you are assuming the basis for stopping is racist. The anomaly does not establish the norm. A ruling by "the courts" can have more than one motivation..one may be the potential cost to the city, with the result being...."just don't do any of that."
If I'm understanding your trust in "the courts", if one police shooting a suspect is found to be justified, then they are all justified.
Do you believe that?
Posted on 3/12/18 at 4:44 pm to LSU2a
quote:
I never made such a claim. Stop assuming everyone that has a similar stance on an issue have the same set of opinions.
I wasn't commenting on any particular claim you or anyone else made. The context of my reply was to your stated frustration in "binary thinking". I simply pointed out that you were exhibiting the same process.
Posted on 3/12/18 at 4:48 pm to LSU2a
quote:
could care less.
The term is "couldn't care less".
For such a serious fella, you seem to have issues with basic things.
The thread wasn't meant to be humorous. It was meant to point out the gaping hole in the lefts 2nd Amendment argument. That went right over your head. Don't get mad at the board for your lack of capacity.
Posted on 3/12/18 at 4:52 pm to Dale51
How so?
Posted on 3/12/18 at 5:00 pm to 9th life
How so?
First I don't believe this:
Then you point out this:
Then this:
You're conflating the repeated experience of one individual--you--with the sporadic experiences of a number of random people in different--and unknown-- circumstances.
That makes the analogy weak imo.
First I don't believe this:
quote:
I will be pulled aside and questioned, frisked, and/or swabbed, every single time.
Then you point out this:
quote:
but it is also limited just to that realm.
Then this:
quote:
If that experience were to occur at random times as i went down the street as opposed to when I opted to fly, I would take issue with the policy.
You're conflating the repeated experience of one individual--you--with the sporadic experiences of a number of random people in different--and unknown-- circumstances.
That makes the analogy weak imo.
Posted on 3/12/18 at 5:27 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
The thread wasn't meant to be humorous. It was meant to point out the gaping hole in the lefts 2nd Amendment argument. That went right over your head. Don't get mad at the board for your lack of capacity
Well then the thread got really ironic because half the board's conservatives came here to support stop and frisk. Looks like that went over your head
Posted on 3/12/18 at 5:27 pm to Ebbandflow
There is my stalker. Hope you are well. Please don't slice me up.
Posted on 3/12/18 at 5:50 pm to TaderSalad
quote:
Holy shite... a non retarded hog fan.
There's two of them actually.
The other was banned from TD six years ago.
Posted on 3/12/18 at 6:01 pm to Dizz
quote:
NYPD specifically targeted Blacks and Hispanics.
So no white people were stopped? What are the racial statistics for criminality in NYC? Were the rates of stops comparable to whom committed crimes?
Posted on 3/12/18 at 6:13 pm to Dale51
quote:
But you are assuming the basis for stopping is racist.
I have never used the term "racist" or made such a claim. I have only stated that stop and frisk was a violation of the 4th ammendment protecting us from unreasonable search.
quote:
A ruling by "the courts" can have more than one motivation..one may be the potential cost to the city, with the result being...."just don't do any of that."
For someone that has charged me with making assumptions you sure do make a lot of assumptions. If you would actually read about the subject matter that you are discussing you would actually have read the remarks of the judge in the case and know that the decision has everything to do with the practice being a violation of the 4th amendment's requirement for police to have reasonable suspicion of a criminal act before they can stop and search an individual.
quote:
If I'm understanding your trust in "the courts", if one police shooting a suspect is found to be justified, then they are all justified.
I'm perfectly fine with questioning and disagreeing with court decisions. Legal interpretations vary and judges don't always get it right. You don't have to trust the decision of the court to determine for yourself that police were stopping and searching individuals without reasonable suspicion. Just read the witness accounts and the accounts of the very officers that were involved.
The beauty of public court cases is that we all have access to the evidence and can make our own conclusions.
Posted on 3/12/18 at 6:15 pm to AUsteriskPride
quote:
What are the racial statistics for criminality in NYC? Were the rates of stops comparable to whom committed crimes?
As if that racist stereotyping wasn't bad enough, almost all people stopped for traffic violations were driving cars and a high percentage of those cars were black or dark colored. They're not even trying to hide their racist crap since Trump was elected.
Posted on 3/12/18 at 6:18 pm to Dale51
quote:
I wasn't commenting on any particular claim you or anyone else made. The context of my reply was to your stated frustration in "binary thinking". I simply pointed out that you were exhibiting the same process.
The binary thinking is assuming that someone that is opposed to the stop and frisk policy thinks that the policy is racist. How am I exhibiting binary thinking?
Posted on 3/12/18 at 6:22 pm to LSU2a
quote:
I have never used the term "racist" or made such a claim. I have only stated that stop and frisk was a violation of the 4th ammendment protecting us from unreasonable search.
Then I misunderstood the implications of your post. Sorry..my mistake. So to settle any loose ends, you don't believe the application of "stop and frisk" has any bias against blacks? Correct?
quote:
you would actually have read the remarks of the judge in the case and know that the decision has everything to do with the practice being a violation of the 4th amendment's requirement for police to have reasonable suspicion of a criminal act before they can stop and search an individual.
I'm not all that impressed with the views of a single judge regardless of the topic. Thats why I believe that if these stop and frisk encounters are taking place in gang areas, RICO laws should be applied. The crime is being associated with a gang.
I don't know why this tactic is not employed.
Posted on 3/12/18 at 6:24 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
Furthermore, they presuppose wrongdoing with little or no justification.
We in the business call that "reasonable suspicion."
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News