****OFFICAL**** Trump Hillary Debate 2016.09.26 Thread****

[Csihar]

How did stop-and-frish work exactly? Did they randomly stop people and frisk them?

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How did stop-and-frish work exactly? Did they randomly stop people and frisk them?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How did stop-and-frish work exactly? Did they randomly stop people and frisk them?

The officer is allowed to know if the person he is talking to poses a threat (weapons etc.)

That's how stop and frisk started and was justified by departments.

[Csihar]

Alrighty. But how was it executed?

Do they randomly (based on racial profiling according to some then apparently but I don't care about that) approach someone and frisk them to see if they have any weapons?

Or was it something put into action once the "suspect" was already being engaged due to suspicious behaviour?

At what point does the stop-and-frisk start?

[entruil]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Weapons checks, and subsequent drug finds, are and will always be legal. The officer has a right to search who he is talking to for his safety.

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Alrighty. But how was it executed?

Do they randomly (based on racial profiling according to some then apparently but I don't care about that) approach someone and frisk them to see if they have any weapons?

Or was it something put into action once the "suspect" was already being engaged due to suspicious behaviour?

At what point does the stop-and-frisk start?

Officer's may have a right to search people that they detain for safety reasons,however this does not give the officer's the right to detain anyone for any reason.

Stop and Frisk (whether constitutional or not, this actually has not been decided yet, much the same way they will drop charges on politicians for corruption once they get them out of the way) was abused under the guise of "Disarming" criminal's. Walking down the street does not make someone a criminal.

In New York, small amounts of marijuana were decriminalized as long as it was kept out of public view. Using this stop-and-frisk tactic many officer's would pull the marijuana out of citizen's pocket into plain view as a way to harrass and discredit(and arrest) people that they thought looked like they should be.

That was just an example, many cases were thrown out as a result.

Using Guns to justify unlawful search and seizure, the NYPD had free reign over whomever they chose.

Now the fact that it is not under challenge atm is intriguing. Pretty well outlines the Dem reality that is the preservation of "The Largest Private Standing Army"(at least that's what bloomberg used to call it) and the Police State regardless what they try to convince you of.

However, have no fear in NYC. They have 4 camera's on you at all times minimum, so if you get attacked by a legit criminal and the Good guys are out harrassing people don't worry, they will watch it later.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by entruil [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Officer's may have a right to search people that they detain for safety reasons,however this does not give the officer's the right to detain anyone for any reason.

Stop and Frisk (whether constitutional or not, this actually has not been decided yet, much the same way they will drop charges on politicians for corruption once they get them out of the way) was abused under the guise of "Disarming" criminal's. Walking down the street does not make someone a criminal.

In New York, small amounts of marijuana were decriminalized as long as it was kept out of public view. Using this stop-and-frisk tactic many officer's would pull the marijuana out of citizen's pocket into plain view as a way to harrass and discredit(and arrest) people that they thought looked like they should be.

That was just an example, many cases were thrown out as a result.

Using Guns to justify unlawful search and seizure, the NYPD had free reign over whomever they chose.

Now the fact that it is not under challenge atm is intriguing. Pretty well outlines the Dem reality that is the preservation of "The Largest Private Standing Army"(at least that's what bloomberg used to call it) and the Police State regardless what they try to convince you of.

However, have no fear in NYC. They have 4 camera's on you at all times minimum, so if you get attacked by a legit criminal and the Good guys are out harrassing people don't worry, they will watch it later.

Fourth ammendment comes into play big time.

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by entruil [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Officer's may have a right to search people that they detain for safety reasons,however this does not give the officer's the right to detain anyone for any reason.

Stop and Frisk (whether constitutional or not, this actually has not been decided yet, much the same way they will drop charges on politicians for corruption once they get them out of the way) was abused under the guise of "Disarming" criminal's. Walking down the street does not make someone a criminal.

In New York, small amounts of marijuana were decriminalized as long as it was kept out of public view. Using this stop-and-frisk tactic many officer's would pull the marijuana out of citizen's pocket into plain view as a way to harrass and discredit(and arrest) people that they thought looked like they should be.

I wasn't familiar with the concept but it made it sound like they "randomly" went up to people, stopped them and continued to frisk them. I gather that this is what happened.

If that's the case I don't see how that fits in with what's described in this text:

"When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm. --Supreme Court, 1968 ruling in response to a 4th amendment case. http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...onstitutional/"

If the stop-and-frisks could be compared to routine drunk driving stops then it doesn't seem to be protected under what is described.

The text described:

1) Individual displaying suspicious is investigated
2) Officer is justified in believing this person may be armed
3) Person is frisked

Stop-and-frisk sounds to me like:

1) Person is stopped and frisked

Or am I missing something?

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The text described:

1) Individual displaying suspicious is investigated
2) Officer is justified in believing this person may be armed
3) Person is frisked

Stop-and-frisk sounds to me like:

1) Person is stopped and frisked

Or am I missing something?

Missing it. After 11 PM many states have zoning laws. I'm sure New York does too. Not to mention loitering.

Many legitimate reasons to engage a potential suspect. And now they can't, even after-hours.

Taking away stop and frisk in its entirety did severe damage to LEOs ability to prevent crime. LEOs can't do their jobs and prevent crime without it. It was a major part of what's called "BROKEN WINDOW THEORY" on crime prevention, believed by Bill Bratton to be a necessity.

Rape and violent battery and deadly assaults are up 7% and 10% for the year, since stop and frisk was banned and cops were forced to just sit in their cars. That could be your family member, your daughter, your mother. Getting it yet?

[Signal]

Trump's issues is himself. Hillary is just more Political Savvy than he will ever be. Until Trump learns to get out of his own way he will continue to lose this race.

[R Flair]

Originally Posted by Signal [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Trump's issues is himself. Hillary is just more Political Savvy than he will ever be. Until Trump learns to get out of his own way he will continue to lose this race.

Trump is actually winning "the race." Even in increasingly inaccurate polls, Trump is ahead in popular vote and in delegates.

You are right about him needing to get out of his head.

He still won the debate though because at the end of the day, normal American's could see the collusion of Hillary and the moderator. He got railroaded and became emotional, but it left him looking like the good guy.

Also, he just stomped Hillary for the first half. After that is was no longer a debate but mostly just a series of questions like 'have you stopped beating your wife.' Only someone that drinks the msm koolaid and believes the conspiracies and dirt would interpret it any other way.