Police 'Stop-and-Frisk' Illegal?

[IXP]

How many of you supporting stop and frisk would still support it if you were stopped and frisked once in your lifetime? How about once a month? Once a week? How about 4 times a day?

If you cannot answer that none of those would bother you, your position is unsupportable.

IXP

 

[WildCat]

The fact remains that without gang members using their second amendment rights, the 4th amendment rights of everyone else wouldn't be at risk. Now, I certainly don't support stop-and-frisk, but I don't support gang members (and rednecks, and idiots and general) having second amendment rights. You do. How do you deal with that inconsistency?

Please provide evidence for your claim that criminal gang members have 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[WildCat]

As part of her ruling on permitting SAF to be continued, US District Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered the NYPD to begin a one-year pilot program to evaluate the benefits of body-worn cameras. In at least one precinct in each of New York's five boroughs, cops will be required to be outfitted with body cams while on SAF duty – they are “uniquely suited to addressing the constitutional harms at issue in this case,” the judge said.

Link

Is this a good idea?

The cops who aren't wearing the cameras will be assigned the stop and frisk duty, while those who wear them will experience mysterious camera malfunctions in cases where suspects claim violations of their rights.

 

[Tony]

Please provide evidence for your claim that criminal gang members have 2nd Amendment rights.

There is nothing in the second amendment that prevents gun ownership based on what gangs, groups or companies an individual may belong. Just admit you're full of ****. At least you won't come off looking like a dishonest fool.

 

[Tony]

You are equivocating murder, assault, and theft using a weapon as second amendment rights.

No I'm not. I only said gang member.

Otherwise I agree. People carrying weapons that do not engage in murder, assault, or theft should not be bothered.

Not all gang members engage in that stuff. Not all gang members have been convicted of any of that stuff.

It looks like more proud, law abiding gun owners (all gun owners are law-abiding until they aren't) have blood on their hands:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/th...-lane-identified/story-fni0fiyv-1226700172461

 

[triforcharity]

There is nothing in the second amendment that prevents gun ownership based on what gangs, groups or companies an individual may belong. Just admit you're full of ****. At least you won't come off looking like a dishonest fool.

Depending on the state, just joining a gang is a felony, and by definition, participating in a gang is in fact a felony, and they have no right to a gun during the commission of a felony. So, easy there Tony....

 

[triforcharity]

It looks like more proud, law abiding gun owners (all gun owners are law-abiding until they aren't) have blood on their hands:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/th...-lane-identified/story-fni0fiyv-1226700172461

Really??? Ok, so all vehicle owners have blood on their hands because a motorcyclist was killed today in my county...... That's some really ****** logic you're using, even for you Tony.

 

[Tony]

Depending on the state, just joining a gang is a felony, and by definition, participating in a gang is in fact a felony, and they have no right to a gun during the commission of a felony. So, easy there Tony....

"Depending on the state". And someone still has to be convicted of a felony to have gun rights taken away. Doesn't contradict what I said.

 

[Tony]

Really??? Ok, so all vehicle owners have blood on their hands because a motorcyclist was killed today in my county...... That's some really ****** logic you're using, even for you Tony.

Less knee-jerk, more thinking. I was specifically talking about the proud gun owners who murdered Chris Lane.

 

[triforcharity]

"Depending on the state". And someone still has to be convicted of a felony to have gun rights taken away. Doesn't contradict what I said.

No. During the commission of a felony.....

 

[triforcharity]

Less knee-jerk, more thinking. I was specifically talking about the proud gun owners who murdered Chris Lane.

Oh, you mean the TEENAGERS who aren't LEGALLY allowed to own or possess a firearm without a parent or adult supervision????? Looks like YOU are the one who need less knee-jerk and more thinking.....

 

[Xulld]

Tony you are equivocating rights with actions taken, there is nothing to talk about, you have no point.

 

[Tony]

No. During the commission of a felony.....

Still doesn't contradict what I said.

Oh, you mean the TEENAGERS who aren't LEGALLY allowed to own or possess a firearm without a parent or adult supervision?????

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says gun rights are only for adults. Why are you against the second amendment? It is strange that you are willing to invent restrictions out of whole cloth to support your agenda. Or, is it that you recognize that some 2nd amendment restrictions are necessary? Let me guess, only the ones that don't affect you right?

Regardless, they were still proud gun owners (your kind of people no doubt).

 

[Tony]

Tony you are equivocating rights with actions taken

How?

there is nothing to talk about, you have no point.

It may be inconvenient for you. But I have a point. My point is that it is rich for people like WildCat to whine about violations of 2nd Amendment rights and 4th Amendment rights when the violation of the 4th amendment rights springs from potentially violent people exercising their 2nd amendment rights. If guns weren't so pervasive and easily available (which is the outcome of polices conservatives like him support), and the threshold for gun ownership wasn't low (which is the outcome of polices conservatives like him support), people like Michael Bloomberg wouldn't consider it necessary to violate 4th amendment rights to keep guns off the street. In short, he is all whine.

 

[triforcharity]

Still doesn't contradict what I said.

No, the facts do. That's the problem.

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says gun rights are only for adults. Why are you against the second amendment?

There's nothing in the first amendment about the internet either, but yet, here you are. Nice try though, but I've seen this kind of twisting and BS. Typical.....

It is strange that you are willing to invent restrictions out of whole cloth to support your agenda.

I'm not opposed to some restrictions. Never have been. Nice try though.....

Or, is it that you recognize that some 2nd amendment restrictions are necessary?

I've never said the opposite. Please educate yourself, instead of inventing some kind of twisted strawman....

Let me guess, only the ones that don't affect you right?

Nope, and if you'd educate yourself on my position, you wouldn't have to invent a position I didn't hold, to try to attack.

Regardless, they were still proud gun owners (your kind of people no doubt).

Nice personal attack. Want to address the facts???

 

[triforcharity]

How?



It may be inconvenient for you. But I have a point. My point is that it is rich for people like WildCat to whine about violations of 2nd Amendment rights and 4th Amendment rights when the violation of the 4th amendment rights springs from potentially violent people exercising their 2nd amendment rights. If guns weren't so pervasive and easily available (which is the outcome of polices conservatives like him support), and the threshold for gun ownership wasn't low (which is the outcome of polices conservatives like him support), people like Michael Bloomberg wouldn't consider it necessary to violate 4th amendment rights to keep guns off the street. In short, he is all whine.

What the **** did I just read??? It's the 2nd Amendment's fault that Bloomberg wants to violate other people's constitutional rights???? Yeah, that's not even wrong.....

And more personal attacks.

 

[Xulld]

How?
when the violation of the 4th amendment rights springs from potentially violent people exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Exercising the right to bear arms =/= murder.
All you need to know that you are wrong is to identify the verbs and realize they are different. When a person makes things that are distinct out to be the same that is known as equivocation.

Keep, Bear, Murder.
Each is distinct, and no where in the 2nd will you find the word murder, or any other verbs. Neither will you find nouns such as Gang. Is that your problem? That laws exist to remove guns from gang members? Interesting . . .

 

[newyorkguy]

Two bills aimed at curbing SAF abuses have been passed into law in New York City, overriding a veto by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The two bills, which the mayor had vetoed and will now become law, represented an effort by frustrated elected officials to force changes on the police from the outside — one through an outside inspector general with subpoena power to study and make policy recommendations to the department; and the other by opening state courts up to individual claims of bias-based policing and by expanding the categories of people entitled to sue.

Link

 

[triforcharity]

Imagine that, Mayor Scumbag wanted to veto it....

 

[WildCat]

There is nothing in the second amendment that prevents gun ownership based on what gangs, groups or companies an individual may belong. Just admit you're full of ****. At least you won't come off looking like a dishonest fool.

Hey, you're the one claiming that criminal gangs have 2nd Amendment rights. Perhaps you should help with a federal lawsuit so all those gangbangers can purchase and possess firearms?