It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Trump will propose nationwide stop-and-frisk to address violence 2nite on Hannity

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

For one that was a super shady thing that happened there that I believe in and of itself is under review, secondly... the city has since dropped the appeal.




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

True. The actual questions seems to be heresay thus far, but the man is running for president, so again, across the nation is not a leap.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Posted twice.
edit on 21-9-2016 by Morosus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Watch the Hannity townhall that was taped earlier today when it airs. That's where he proposed it.

Trump calls for nationwide 'stop-and-frisk' policy


“I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to. We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well and you have to be proactive and, you know, you really help people sort of change their mind automatically,” Trump told the questioner. “You understand, you have to have, in my opinion, I see what’s going on here, I see what’s going on in Chicago, I think stop-and-frisk. In New York City it was so incredible, the way it worked. Now, we had a very good mayor, but New York City was incredible, the way that worked, so I think that could be one step you could do.”


Now that you can't deny that he said it, what are your thoughts?


Brainstorming possible solutions is hardly "proposing a nationwide stop and frisk policy".

I am all for increasing random searches on violent felon parolees, since the vast majority of gun crimes are commited by repeat offenders.


edit on 21-9-2016 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Only time will tell, if Trump is getting any kind of advice, it's very doubtful this is the proposal.

Then again, if he goes off script, anything is possible.




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TinfoilTP


originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Stop and Frisk also removes Probable Cause and Violates the constitution.




No it doesn't, go tell New York City that and ask why they were able to do it.



Exactly what part of it was ruled unconstitutional do you not understand?

Center for Constitutional rights


The ruling was blocked.



The article you linked says this.



The ruling on the unconstitutionality of stop-and-frisk stands, but those changes will now be delayed pending the outcome of the city's appeal





"Basically, this court is saying to the citizens of New York, who have followed this case and who were very uplifted by the fact that a federal judge stood up to protect the rights of all citizens of the city of New York … this is the panel of the second circuit saying: 'Drop dead, New York',"


It is still ruled unconstitutional they just do not care.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yes, and those communities too exist "across the nation," eh? Some very interesting comments elsewhere about this, as in no need for some people to wear badges. This is so thinly veiled and/or poorly thought out it's ludicrous. And this and other things he says are empowering those prone to anti-social and dangerous behaviors, which is the far bigger concern. He is not a uniter.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
The more Trump speaks the more it sounds like he wants a show me your papers society.


Yes, he wants a police state... that's why the police union endorses him: job security.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TinfoilTP

So... Fourth Amendment?


I thought your side hated the 2nd amendment, now you are for every street corner thug to have a pistol in their pocket? Which is it?



This.

Yes, show me your papers for this gun you have on you.






posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy


Yes, show me your papers for this gun you have on you.


Wouldn't that be an infringement?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TinfoilTP

It's not a strawman because I'm not suggesting that he did say it.

It's an analogy based of your statement.

Funny that you support stop and frisk nationwide but you're worried about SJW's. You're priorities are all out of whack.


Let's see...one (stop n frisk) disarms street thugs, the other (SJW's) enables street rioting arsonists. I get the picture perfectly clear and it is all too obvious which one is for good and which one is for violence.


Remember Ted Bundy? One of the most ruthless serial killers of all time. Know why he got away with so many for so long? People trusted him. Know why? He didn't fit the idea that they had in their heads of what a psychopathic murderer was supposed to look and behave like. Think about that for just a minute. And think about how many millions of people are walking around out there carrying a loaded firearm on their person, who don't fit the typical profile of a "street thug".

Now, think about how much people of all demographics care to be stopped by police, who we are told daily that we absolutely cannot trust, without probable cause, and searched, when our own Constitution states in plain English that this is in direct violation of our rights. Think, too, about how many people out there might be guilty of something completely unrelated and panic because they're being stopped, and start shooting? Somebody dodging a bench warrant could suddenly become an armed assailant because of a situation like that.

Not only would we be putting our police and innocent bystanders at unnecessary risk of a violent confrontation, we'd be keeping them from adequately doing the rest of their duties, putting the safety of one person above everyone else who they have sworn to protect and serve. Political pissing contest aside, there are many reasons in addition to these why what he is so nonchalantly suggesting is absolutely ludicrous...and reckless. His own supporters, on this very thread, are saying that this is way beyond the pale.


It's not about one side or the other. It's about all of us, nationwide, having our constitutional rights subverted to protect the interests of one person who simply cannot seem to stop stirring this same boiling pot of sh!t and making people constantly want to hurt him in the first place. Might does not always equal right; that mentality is a stepping stone to the path of destruction.

Is he worth giving up our Constitutional rights for? You think he'd do the same for any of us? You think any of them would? If that answer is anything but "no", then you are deluding yourself. If we, as a nation of people, accept this, we will only serve to fling wide the door to a total police state. In fact, this might very well be a testing of the waters. I hope not, because from where I'm sitting, they look pretty damned murky.
edit on 30036America/ChicagoWed, 21 Sep 2016 18:03:45 -050030pm30264America/Chicago by tigertatzen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Watch the Hannity townhall that was taped earlier today when it airs. That's where he proposed it.

Trump calls for nationwide 'stop-and-frisk' policy


“I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to. We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well and you have to be proactive and, you know, you really help people sort of change their mind automatically,” Trump told the questioner. “You understand, you have to have, in my opinion, I see what’s going on here, I see what’s going on in Chicago, I think stop-and-frisk. In New York City it was so incredible, the way it worked. Now, we had a very good mayor, but New York City was incredible, the way that worked, so I think that could be one step you could do.”


Now that you can't deny that he said it, what are your thoughts?



Well it probably be up to the Mayors with Fed backing somehow.

I can't see why the opposition to take illegal guns off the streets.






posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
There are probably multiple things I'm going to disagree with that Trump wants to do.

I refuse to be like so many that adopt the ideology of their political leader. So I will disagree with someone, but will probably still end up voting for him, I can't vote for Hillary.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TinfoilTP


originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Stop and Frisk also removes Probable Cause and Violates the constitution.




No it doesn't, go tell New York City that and ask why they were able to do it.



Exactly what part of it was ruled unconstitutional do you not understand?

Center for Constitutional rights


The ruling was blocked.



The article you linked says this.



The ruling on the unconstitutionality of stop-and-frisk stands, but those changes will now be delayed pending the outcome of the city's appeal





"Basically, this court is saying to the citizens of New York, who have followed this case and who were very uplifted by the fact that a federal judge stood up to protect the rights of all citizens of the city of New York … this is the panel of the second circuit saying: 'Drop dead, New York',"


It is still ruled unconstitutional they just do not care.


Doesn't the SC decide what is unconstitutional or is that just nationwide?




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
There are probably multiple things I'm going to disagree with that Trump wants to do.

I refuse to be like so many that adopt the ideology of their political leader. So I will disagree with someone, but will probably still end up voting for him, I can't vote for Hillary.


Wow. Did you catch my post on the last page?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
The most luxurious stop and searches...we're going to search you so fast your head will spin! Believe me !



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: DBCowboy
There are probably multiple things I'm going to disagree with that Trump wants to do.

I refuse to be like so many that adopt the ideology of their political leader. So I will disagree with someone, but will probably still end up voting for him, I can't vote for Hillary.


Wow. Did you catch my post on the last page?


Just did.

0_o



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: burgerbuddy


Yes, show me your papers for this gun you have on you.


Wouldn't that be an infringement?



Infringement of what?

Just the same as asking for lic and registration when you get stopped or is that unconstitutional too?

Oh, you left it in your other pants? lol.

Bring zee papers and collect zee weapon at zee headquarters.




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: imsoconfused


Come on folks......this wouldn't be a bad idea in Chicago. Not around here though, go blow Don.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   


Just the same as asking for lic and registration when you get stopped or is that unconstitutional too?


Driving is not covered under the Constitution.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join