FBI Director calls 'stop and frisk' an important tool when used right

[dogs4thewin]

If there is reasonable cause it won't really be a stop and frisk, it will be part of the arrest process.

Well, but in order for THAT to be the case one is ARRESTED and THEN searched. ( unless they were to consent to a search.)

 

[dogs4thewin]

Even if it wasn't a gross violation of the fourth ammendment, that by any standard is a huge waste of time and resources. Many of the cops they had wasting time on that could have been fired so as to free up taxpayers money.

Why would they fire them? The term fire usually indicates some form of misconduct. If they are doing what is permitted legally and by department policy as it relates to their job they, in fact could sue for being wrongfully fired.

 

[civilwarbuff]

But the constitution was, in fact designed to be changeable, so it could be made constitutional.

It could, but only over my dead body......and probably a lot of others to boot.....

 

[dogs4thewin]

It could, but only over my dead body......and probably a lot of others to boot.....

With all due respect the current law makers decide whether to ratify a given amendment. Yes, we elect them and yes if we do not like their decisions we may vote them out of office, but they do not take a poll of the citizens to decide.

 

[dogs4thewin]

and yet the problem was "reasonable" cause was mostly deemed to be if someone wasn't white they got stopped and frisked.

now in a NYC which is 23% African-American, 29% Latino, and 33% Caucasian the stops broke down as follows.

52% African-American, 31% Latino, and 10% Caucasian.

Police then found Weapons and Contraband on 1% of African-Americans they stopped and 1.4% of Caucasians they stopped.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...sidential-debate-trump-clinton-stop-and-frisk

No, if it is true reasonable cause it is NOT based on race. If a person feels that he or she was racaly profiled, and is arrested, such a person is free to challenage the state's findings in court.

 

[civilwarbuff]

With all due respect the current law makers decide whether to ratify a given amendment. Yes, we elect them and yes if we do not like their decisions we may vote them out of office, but they do not take a poll of the citizens to decide.

To become an operative part of the Constitution, an amendment, whether proposed by Congress or a national constitutional convention, must be ratified by either:

• The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states; or
• State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states......wiki

More amendments have failed than succeeded......

• 
  
  
  
  
  

 

[dogs4thewin]

To become an operative part of the Constitution, an amendment, whether proposed by Congress or a national constitutional convention, must be ratified by either:

• The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states; or
• State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states......wiki

More amendments have failed than succeeded......

• 
  
  
  
  

Well, yes FAR more amendments have been filed than have "made it". but my point was the states ( not just polls within the states, but the current lawmakers at the end of the day decide whether to support an amendment; not the PEOPLE in a given state.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Well, yes FAR more amendments have been filed than have "made it". but my point was the states ( not just polls within the states, but the current lawmakers at the end of the day decide whether to support an amendment; not the PEOPLE in a given state.

And the lawmakers in the states would be fools not to listen to the people. Those in DC are more removed (and more hard of hearing). Those in state legislatures are far more accessible since they live locally.

 

[aieyiamfu]

Why would they fire them? The term fire usually indicates some form of misconduct. If they are doing what is permitted legally and by department policy as it relates to their job they, in fact could sue for being wrongfully fired.

Terminate them then.

 

[Belk]

It could, but only over my dead body......and probably a lot of others to boot.....

We may not agree on all things but we do on this one.

 

[RDKirk]

Not me?

9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim thevirtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Hebrews 7:16
Who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.

That's in reference to Christians, not to the average pagan on the street.

You seem to be saying that Christians should be singled out for stop-and-frisk.

 

[RDKirk]

With all due respect the current law makers decide whether to ratify a given amendment. Yes, we elect them and yes if we do not like their decisions we may vote them out of office, but they do not take a poll of the citizens to decide.

You have a lot of state lawmakers to convince.

 

[mala]

No, if it is true reasonable cause it is NOT based on race. If a person feels that he or she was racaly profiled, and is arrested, such a person is free to challenage the state's findings in court.

that is a load of wishful fairyland thinking.
basically you're saying that they should accept the punishments now and then try to get recompense later which in of itself is can be a monumental task as has been proven over and over again.
your opinion on this is frankly childish and ignorant of the struggles people have faced.

 

[dogs4thewin]

that is a load of wishful fairyland thinking.
basically you're saying that they should accept the punishments now and then try to get recompense later which in of itself is can be a monumental task as has been proven over and over again.
your opinion on this is frankly childish and ignorant of the struggles people have faced.

That is the way to go about it they must be proven guilty and if the state does not follow the rules to do so they have a right to a hearing to get the stuff thrown out.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Terminate them then.

Still that implies misconduct; if you lay someone off that simply means (usually) that they do not have the work for them to do.

 

[mala]

That is the way to go about it they must be proven guilty and if the state does not follow the rules to do so they have a right to a hearing to get the stuff thrown out.

and all of that is fine in a perfect world but completely useless in a world where bigotry is present in the people who run the system.

 

[rambot]

Aren'te there a few government organizations that would say the same thing about torture?