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: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: imsoconfused


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



I think that's what he means.

Frisking 100 mil people is harder than deporting 11 mil.

Like Dick Bimbo PI says, there are things you might not agree with, but then again, who knows. It might just work to take illegal guns off the street and felons will go back to jail if caught with one.

Trump has a carry lic, so does Hannity so we'll see how Orwellian his idea is.

I'm sure the NRA and its members would be open to getting illegal guns off your streets.





posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Not sure if real, but even if it is I never claimed Trump was a constitutional scholar. The President has no power over local police (well, the President *shouldn't* have power over police... looking at YOU Obama and DoJ)

So who is going to stop and frisk people? The FBI?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel



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.



Neither is concealed carry.

They can ask for ID, can't they?

There are a few things you must comply with under certain laws that might seem a violation of the COTUS.






posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
As has been pointed out, you'll see the taped episode of Donald Trump's Town Hall tonight on Hannity. Fox News network @ 10pm Eastern.

According to Donald, it worked very well in New York City.

Ref: www.mediaite.com...



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: imsoconfused


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



The citizens on the South and West side of my fair city should DEMAND that Stop-and-Frisk be put in place. All they're doing now is attending funerals.

"Stop and Frisk" is a lot more tame than what I would suggest for high-crime areas.. but its a start. If it worked in New York, what the hell do we have to lose by giving it a try!?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

You'll scream authoritarian about taxes but this you just a compliant "well" to?

LOL



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Not sure if real, but even if it is I never claimed Trump was a constitutional scholar. The President has no power over local police (well, the President *shouldn't* have power over police... looking at YOU Obama and DoJ)

So who is going to stop and frisk people? The FBI?


And, local police, likewise, "shouldn't" be able to ignore federal law and violate citizen's constitutional rights.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Because the Don can say no wrong.

Impose stop and frisk, 100k more votes...

Am i rite? Isnt this the trumpetiers' mantra?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DBCowboy

You'll scream authoritarian about taxes but this you just a compliant "well" to?

LOL


Who said I'd be compliant?

Did I?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

In a nut shell, yes, that's what we're looking at.

Stop and frisk. There's this little amendment called the 4th that has a little something to say about that... Namely, NO!



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

I responded to the notion of license and insurance proof.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Authoritarians to the left of me, tyrants to the right. . .

Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: WilburnRoach

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.


To be fair Trump isn't attracting the best and brightest among us.


I would argue against that.

Trump is courting working class whites, the very BEST among us.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

my husband and brothers are all working class white man and do not support trump. nope, never, no way. he's using you.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




but will probably still end up voting for him



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I would much rather they make racial and religious profiling legal and admit they are going to be looking at blacks and muslims with greater scrutiny.

The riots going on right now just drive home the need for it. When was the last time white people went on a rampage looting, burning, and vandalizing because some white guy got shot? I can't think of any.

Christians? Nope.

Blacks and muslims? Oh yeah.

I don't support "stop and frisk" in a general sense. It violates the fourth amendment, which protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. The police should not be able to frisk people out in public at any time, unless there is a reason for it. Blacks and muslims have given us more than enough reason for it.
edit on 9/21/16 by peskyhumans because: clarity



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
So what do you genius's recommend to stop all the shootings?

National Guard?

Talk them out of it?

Ban all legal guns?

What?

Guns for toys drives?

What's the most simple answer?




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

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?



I am a bit dumbfounded by that remark. Do you really believe that every ruling on constitutionality of such things has to go to the supreme court?

To answer your question that would be "NO".

A federal court certainly has the authority to rule on the constitutionality of stop and frisk.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy




What's the most simple answer?

What makes you think there is a single answer?
Besides Trump I mean.
edit on 9/21/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

And you'll vote for Hillary and the wheels on the bus go. . . . . .



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join