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

[AzzarTheGod]

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

the real problem is not enough female police performing the searches

Exactly.

*writhes hands in anticipation of the next bait*

[Csihar]

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

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?

I don't think I'm explaining my question right but I don't know how to ask it in a different way. I'll try again.

Is the following scenario stop and frisk?

An officer goes out and thinks "I'll stop about 20 people today and see if they have a weapon. I'll start with the first person I see". Kind of silly but I'm trying to make it as clear as possible. So the stopping of a person would be completely random. The accusation of course would be that it wasn't in fact random but they were purposely selecting black and hispanic men. IF that is the case then I don't see how it's protected under the constitution.

Or is the following scenario stop and frisk?

An officer sees someone acting specific and stops them. Not a random act. Then he proceeds to frisk them. I see how that could be defended under the text you posted.

Was it something that was added to aid officers during a stop (a stop that they normally would have made anyway)? Or was it an action in itself like a routine drunk driving checkup? Anyone that passes will get checked.

Hopefully it's more clear now.

[Nihilist_santa]

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

I don't think I'm explaining my question right but I don't know how to ask it in a different way. I'll try again.

Is the following scenario stop and frisk?

An officer goes out and thinks "I'll stop about 20 people today and see if they have a weapon. I'll start with the first person I see". Kind of silly but I'm trying to make it as clear as possible. So the stopping of a person would be completely random. The accusation of course would be that it wasn't in fact random but they were purposely selecting black and hispanic men. IF that is the case then I don't see how it's protected under the constitution.

Or is the following scenario stop and frisk?

An officer sees someone acting specific and stops them. Not a random act. Then he proceeds to frisk them. I see how that could be defended under the text you posted.

Was it something that was added to aid officers during a stop (a stop that they normally would have made anyway)? Or was it an action in itself like a routine drunk driving checkup? Anyone that passes will get checked.

Hopefully it's more clear now.

It's pretty simple what the issue is. Basically anytime police are proactive like with stop and frisk it gets labeled as racist or profiling. Why? Simple because proactive policing means going to where the crime is AKA where tha blacks be.

[AzzarTheGod]

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

It's pretty simple what the issue is. Basically anytime police are proactive like with stop and frisk it gets labeled as racist or profiling. Why? Simple because proactive policing means going to where the crime is AKA where tha blacks be.

Yeah but that's kind of racist if you don't even need to go there.

Poor and destitute commit the crimes. Its all about the money. It just so happens black people have no money 99% of the time.

Ask yourself about the crimes you may have committed, I am sure they are all money related whether directly or indirectly. Money makes everything better.

Even situations you might not have thought about:

Example, assault and battery at the bar while cruising for girls. Well, if you were very well-off, you'd probably be doing like Jimmy Norton and have a different high end escort for every day of the week. You aren't going to be tussling with guys at the bar for not respecting you.

The face of money is everywhere.

[Csihar]

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

It's pretty simple what the issue is. Basically anytime police are proactive like with stop and frisk it gets labeled as racist or profiling. Why? Simple because proactive policing means going to where the crime is AKA where tha blacks be.

I think basic reading skills are a much larger issue :/

[Nihilist_santa]

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

I think basic reading skills are a much larger issue :/

Maybe elf sim isnt the best search engine pal.

[skarlorn]

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

Yeah but that's kind of racist if you don't even need to go there.

Poor and destitute commit the crimes. Its all about the money. It just so happens black people have no money 99% of the time.

Ask yourself about the crimes you may have committed, I am sure they are all money related whether directly or indirectly. Money makes everything better.

Even situations you might not have thought about:

Example, assault and battery at the bar while cruising for girls. Well, if you were very well-off, you'd probably be doing like Jimmy Norton and have a different high end escort for every day of the week. You aren't going to be tussling with guys at the bar for not respecting you.

The face of money is everywhere.

Confirmed most of my thievery career was as a young teen and it was in the candy racket. Cause I didn't have candy money.

[entruil]

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

Cause I didn't have candy money.

I can't do it like ya'll at all... lmao echo echo echo...

[Angushjalmur]

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

with a good enough lawyer, it doesn't matter what they find on you because it will be thrown out. don't give them any other reasons to hold you (obstruction of justice, resisting arrest, etc), and as long as they had no legal reason to search you, they cant use anything they find on you against you in court.

themoreyouknow.gif

I think the fact that "good enough lawyer" is even a term speaks volumes about our legal system. Why would one lawyer be better than another? They're going by the same laws