Posted on 01/09/2013 9:07:25 PM PST by Zhang Fei
Conservatives hate stop-and-frisk. Go back to China and run over some dissidents with a tank if you're jonesing play jackboot that badly.
Your trust in government employees abiding by any sensible restrictions is misguided.
What in the article makes you say that, or are you jumping to a conclusion? The article says the officers are in or near the buildings because of the TAP program. They are invited by the building owners to look for trespassers who may be committing additional crimes.
I read the court decision.
Once in a hole, it is many times better to stop digging.
Neither Chinese nor from China. Pre-1960's police enforcement stateside = running dissidents over with a tank? It's pretty clear that leftism has won in this country when so-called conservatives start parroting the leftist love of paranoid hyperbole. Has no one heard of Godwin's Law? Unless someone's talking about ending elections, every issue is up for discussion next Election Day. We don't need judges imposing their dictatorial rulings on us.
You ignored my entire post. Nice job.
Simply lowering crime is NOT a legitimate reason for unconstitutional civil rights violations. Lots of heavy-handed and oppressive policies could result in lower crime, would you be OK with all of them, so long as crime decreased?
Another fact for you to chew on: Far greater atrocities have been committed by governments and their agents than by all other, non-government crime combined!
Keeping the government under control is way more important than lowering crime, if you look at the big picture. That's why the Constitution is all about controlling government and not about crime.
We don't need Bloomberg and his leftarded flying monkeys violating people's Constitutional rights either.
So, sixty odd posts through this thread, and nobody has rallied to your cause or embraced your argument . . . yet we're the "so-called conservatives" around here?
Might want to take a look in the ol' mirror, there, my faux Chinese friend, and consider the previously unthinkable: you're wrong. It's okay. Even Arthur Fonzarelli was known to make mistakes from time to time. And giving a draconian, statist, decidedly anti-American notion like "stop-n-frisk" a big ol' bearhug when you're a self-styled conservative is, um, not right.
That's good. What was in it that makes you think they violated Terry v. Ohio, and that a higher court won't overturn?
Actually, I'll think what is decidedly thinkable, that none of these commenters has lived in a slummy area of NYC (or anywhere else), but love indulging in the Walter Mitty-ish fantasies prevalent in Hollywood action thrillers. I have, and it's no picnic. Given the actual lay of the land, stop-and-frisk is the worst law enforcement program out there except for all the other real-world options.
Stop-and-frisk is a return to pre-1960's law enforcement actions. Do you really think think the country was one vast gulag before Mirandization and all the other criminal-friendly Federal court rulings starting in the 1960's?
Bloomberg doesn't like guns. But he doesn't like crime either. And that's what distinguishes him from leftards like Judge Scheindlin, Slate and the Obama DOJ who think we shouldn't be too hard on criminals.
Sara Palin and the Tea Party think the government has no business interfering with the daily business of innocent Americans. Either you have rights or you don't. Either you're for Liberty or you are against it.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
For a couple of centuries, the country operated on the premise that vagrancy laws and other statutes hostile to the criminal element were not "unreasonable". Again, was the country really one vast gulag before the 1960's? I seem to recall an era when people left their homes and their vehicles unlocked.
Out in Pennsylvania Dutch country, the Amish are peaceable technophobes. Their pigmented cousins in the big cities, not so much. Peaceable, that is.
We're not talking about vagrants. We're talking about people going about their daily business and getting stopped and felt up by the filthy pervs in blue. NYPD might as well be TSA scum.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You continue to ignore the core issue of my posts, which is incrementalism. I assume it's because you have no response to offer.
I've never claimed that stop-and-frisk equals a "vast gulag", but that violation of civil rights by the government to any degree should be stopped. The courts ruled correctly in this matter, stopping "unreasonable searches and seizures".
You apparently have only two answers to all the disagreement thrown your way: 1) Stop and frisk isn't as draconian as X. (Where X= vast gulag, etc.), and 2) regardless of whether stop-and-frisk is constitutional or not, it reduces crime, so it's OK.
So, to directly answer your apparent claims:
1) The degree of wrong doesn't alter the basic fact of wrong. Because aggravated murder is worse than armed robbery, it does not follow that armed robbery is OK. Because stop-and-frisk is not a "vast gulag", it does NOT follow that stop-and-frisk is OK.
2) This is simply an "ends justify the means" argument, and it's just as wrong in this incarnation. The fact that stop-and-frisk decreases crime does NOT change its basic nature as a violation of the "unreasonable searches and seizures" guarantee of the constitution. It's wrong, and LEOs should NOT be allowed to do it.
You truly are one sick SOB!
Not compared to the Amish. The pigmented big city Amish, that is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.