Quote:
Originally Posted by Csihar
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Okay but then it's:
1) Individual displaying suspicious is investigated
2) Officer is justified in believing this person may be armed
3) Person is frisked
Right?
I can't seem to get a straight answer to the my question. Was stop and frisk the act of RANDOMLY selecting people? Or was it simply the act of frisking someone who was already being engaged? It sounded random to me, which wouldn't be covered by what that text described.
If it's about frisking people who are already being investigated then alright. The name is pretty odd then though. 'Stop and frisk'
|
Well that's why I put the old lady pic in there, flashing the gang sign while brandishing a firearm. Personally I thought it was down right hilarious, which would be the correct response while understanding the issue. But I picked up on your question from the get go, what you were leading to.
There is no "straight answer" like you are looking for, not unless it's explainable to a robot (literally meaning - not calling you a robot). This is an answer for the human equation, and why we just cant have robots patrolling the streets. May as well just fly armed autonomous drones (and they probably will very soon) if you lawyer it up to an algorithm understandable by crude robots, which it can't be understood by them and work properly.
Haven't you ever ...felt... the outcome of a situation? Whatever you want to call it, a premonition? Whatever. Robots can't do that, only people can. Cops on the streets can develop that pretty well, they call it gut feeling. Better to listen to it and be wrong than to not listen to it and be dead. At least if wrong, nobody is dead. If a robot is wrong, and they can't do gut feelings, then they just break after the attack.
So no, I refuse to lawyer cops into becoming robots, then say "see they are not good robots" and then demand robots to be put on the street. Because that's what it leads to.
The 1968 supreme court had it right, it is fully applicable to this case of stop and frisk. Considering the huge amount of cases they get every year compared to the very very few rulings they have time for (less than 1%), it's a waste of their time to go back and commentary it down to lawyer it up and then probably go back to the courts again at a future date to commentary it down again.
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Makes sense now?