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 urges Americans to give up the Constitution for Security

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

The standard is stop, question and frisk and not just stop and frisk. NYPD's program is based on that ruling. The only issue with NYPD's used is the use on Latinos and Blacks more than whites. We would need to see the racial makeup of the neighborhoods it was used in as well as the crimes for the area to get a better idea.




posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
Trump will shred the Constitution and usher in a Fascist police state totally subservient to the Corporations; A neocons wet dream.


What will be shredded?



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




The standard is stop, question and frisk and not just stop and frisk.


Stop, question and frisk who and why? These are the questions. Just stopping and questioning folks because they fit a physical profile isn't probable cause or reasonable suspicion, in my view.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xcathdra




The standard is stop, question and frisk and not just stop and frisk.


Stop, question and frisk who and why? These are the questions. Just stopping and questioning folks because they fit a physical profile isn't probable cause or reasonable suspicion, in my view.



Not in SCOTUS' either ... at least in Terry.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
a reply to: windword

Yes its in Terry vs. Ohio -
Terry vs. Ohio - Cornell
Wiki - Tery vs. Ohio

a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."[1]

For their own protection, after a person has been stopped, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry frisk". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).


Stop, question, and frisk. All that is required is reasonable suspicion "that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

You and others are ignoring the question portion, as I pointed out before.

An officer can initiate a traffic stop based on reasonable suspicion the driver committed an offense. During the stop the officer speaks with the driver. The "questioning" of the driver either leads to confirmation a crime was committed, raising reasonable suspicion to probable cause or it reveals no crime occurred, ending the contact.

Just like "stop, question and frisk in NY.
edit on 22-9-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Is race or ethnicity of the "suspect" reasonable suspicion or probable cause?

Here is the relevant finding in Terry V. Ohio:



Held:

1. The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Pp. 8-9.

2. The issue in this case is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct, but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure. P. 12.

3. The exclusionary rule cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques, and this Court's approval of such techniques should not discourage remedies other than the exclusionary rule to curtail police abuses for which that is not an effective sanction. Pp. 13-15.

4. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those followed here. Pp. 16-20.
(a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 16.
(b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. P. 16.

5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.
(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 20.
(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22.
(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 22.
(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24.
(e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 25-26. (f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 26-27.

6. The officer's protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted. Pp. 27-30.
(a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were consistent with the officer's hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed. P. 28.
(b) The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Pp. 29-30.


Terry decision, Cornell, et. al.

There doesn't seem to be any statement regarding race or ethnicity whether individually or as a characteristic of a neighborhood as a point "reasonable belief" in the text of Terry.
edit on 22-9-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Link



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
stop and frisk has been shown to help deter crime.

...just make sure you have probable cause first...

there's a real big grey area there



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: acackohfcc
stop and frisk has been shown to help deter crime.

...just make sure you have probable cause first...

there's a real big grey area there


12 years of data from New York City suggest stop-and-frisk wasn’t that effective - Washington Post

Stop and Frisk: The Human Impact - Center for Constitutional Rights

Etc. etc.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Let me know when the President assassinates Americans at home or abroad.




Are you seriously that woefully uninformed about the matter ? 4 Americans abroad have been assassinated, under order from the President, Obama and previous secretary of state. 3 named, 1 a 16 year old kid, and the last never had their identity revealed.

And then, the "White Paper" the subject of the report I quoted. That The current administration, had granted it'self the authority to assassinate citizens at home, abroad and without any oversight what so ever. Infact, they argued that the justification it'self of the act was top-secret. Think about that for a minute will ya ? Boasting about a kill-list in their pocket... Joking about targeting other citizens at fund raisers....

This is happening NOW !
We don't really need to discuss the dangers of a self-granting authority, do we ? They produce acts and violations like the above. We don't need to cover the illegal & unconstitutional surveillance state, that has done nothing but expand under the current administration, do we ?


If you're really that worried about the Constitution, and not just a political party ; Then be consistent. But your lack of actual concern highlights this isn't a constitutional concern you have, it's concern for a political party.

America needs a lot less of it, and more actual concern for the rule of law.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I'm not surprised to discover that you're utterly misrepresenting the facts of the situation:

Politifact - Four U.S. citizens killed in Obama drone strikes, but 3 were not intended targets




Rogers said Obama was responsible for "the assassination of at least four American citizens" in drone strikes. U.S. drone strikes reportedly carried out on Obama’s authority killed the citizens listed by Rogers. But three deaths were evidently not intended, while it’s debated -- and unsettled at best -- whether the killing of al-Awlaki, targeted for his al-Qaeda role, was an assassination. We rate this claim, which presents these deaths out of context, as Half True.


The article clearly explains that what you're parroting is not in any way as straightforward as you pretend. One of the four was alleged to be working with Al-Qaeda ... funny you failed to mention that, eh?

No, there's no authorization for drone strikes against American citizens in the boundaries of the United States.

Yes, I am concerned about the Constitution but totally unconcerned about your opinions and obvious misrepresentation of facts.

edit on 22-9-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted. Link


(post by mikell removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I'm not surprised to discover that you're utterly misrepresenting the facts of the situation:

Politifact - Four U.S. citizens killed in Obama drone strikes, but 3 were not intended targets





Rogers said Obama was responsible for "the assassination of at least four American citizens" in drone strikes. U.S. drone strikes reportedly carried out on Obama’s authority killed the citizens listed by Rogers. But three deaths were evidently not intended, while it’s debated -- and unsettled at best -- whether the killing of al-Awlaki, targeted for his al-Qaeda role, was an assassination. We rate this claim, which presents these deaths out of context, as Half True.


The article clearly explains that what you're parroting is not in any way as straightforward as you pretend. One of the four was alleged to be working with Al-Qaeda ... funny you failed to mention that, eh?

No, there's no authorization for drone strikes against American citizens in the boundaries of the United States.

Yes, I am concerned about the Constitution but totally unconcerned about your opinions and obvious misrepresentation of facts.


First you believe the indictment or charge if sufficient can strip you of constitutional protections ? Because that is exactly what you expressed. And thusly, shows what I said about your opinion as true, ipso facto.

Second response, who said drone strike ? I said, and the white paper says.... Targeted assassination/killing. Pretty shallow to assume that can only be done by drone strike. WHo said anything about drone-strikes inside the US ? You that's it, the White Paper discuss the targeted killing/assassination inside the contenintal U.S. not the methodology.

Also the premise that 3 targets were unintentional ? Absolute crap. Only Alawki and Samir were hit one one strike, the other two targets were taken out in two separate strikes. And when asked how could the United States target a 16 year old kid for assassination Gibbs responds with : I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.

And what was The Atlantic's take on it when reported, :


Again, note that this kid wasn't killed in the same drone strike as his father. He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists.


So no, the mere fact you think being called a terrorist strips you of constitutional rights and protections exemplifies your lack of actual concern for the constitution and more about protecting a political party. You're making excuses to protect a democratic administration, from clearly unconstitutional acts.

Your concern is not for the Constitution.


"Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply," said CCR Staff Attorney

- Pardiss Kebriaei, ACLU

edit on 22-9-2016 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
If Trump wins the race you can kiss your liberties goodbye.

Better hide your guns now, before he takes them by force.




posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It can be given the crime stats for a specific area and the description of suspected individuals. Based on that info law enforcement can stop, question and frisk, which falls under Terry vs. Ohio.
edit on 22-9-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Right if LEOs are looking for a specific suspect for a specific crime, but not based on "crime stats for an area."

I'd guess the later is why New York has been in such hot water over stop-and-frisk.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes crime stats for an area can be used to stop and speak to people in the area.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
There are thinkers out there who are arguing that the USA has been in a post-constitutional age for anything up to a decade. Their arguments are not without weight. Bush and Obama have pretty much wiped their feet on the document whenever they've felt the need, and the only outcry has been from the fringes.

And it's not as if the Constitution was handed down on Mount Sinai, is it? It's been amended often enough. The 18th amendment and the sequel of the 21st spring to mind as the prime examples of re-writing the Constitution. (Introduction of alcohol prohibition, followed by its repeal a few years later). The USA survived this substantial revision.

American jurists often pay lip-service to England's Magna Carta of 1215, seeing it as a sort of dress-rehearsal for the US War of Independence some 500 years later, with similarly long-lasting results.

But what they never mention is that Magna Carta was repealed bit by bit over the next few centuries, until today only two clauses are left on the statute books. Yet (and this is the important bit) England, then Britain, advanced as a society even as Magna Carta was being rolled back, rather than relapsing into absolute rule by divine appointment. Something similar -- although perhaps not as extensive -- will have to happen to America's founding document in the fullness of time.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
This is from the Huffington Post in Australia! I don't believe anything from the Huffington Post, not here in the US and not in Australia. If fact, I don't believe in much I read in print or hear, unless it is coming from the horses' mouth. The horse's mouth may have said this, but I sure didn't hear it and I don't believe it.





originally posted by: rnaa
So... Trump's latest attack on the Constitution: he wants to reinstate intimidation tactics that have already been ruled unconstitutional years ago. He has already declared that he wants to eliminate the 1st and 2nd Amendment and the "due process" clause. Now this?

His policy plans will clearly require Constitutional Amendments to implement. What exactly are his plans to get these proposals through Congress and ratified by the States? How stupid does he think the electorate really is?

Trump Proposes Reinstating Stop And Frisk At Event Aimed At Black Voters

From the linked article:


Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump thinks the best way to stop crime in black communities is to broaden the use of stop and frisk, a policing tactic that has been proved to be discriminatory against blacks and Latinos.
...
Trump’s claim that “in New York City, it was so incredible the way it worked” isn’t quite accurate. The tactics used there have been broadly condemned for disproportionately targeting blacks and Latinos while only incrementally reducing crime.
...
In 2013, a federal judge ruled the practice was being used unconstitutionally in New York, calling it a “policy of indirect racial profiling” because the New York City Police Department disproportionately targeted black and Latino men during routine traffic stops. In her ruling, Judge Shira Scheindlin wrote that stop and frisk was “a demeaning and humiliating experience” for communities of color.

“No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life,” she wrote.

Later that year, an investigation by the New York state attorney general found that only 3 percent of traffic stops “led to guilty pleas or convictions at trial” and only 0.1 percent were for violent crimes.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

It can be given the crime stats for a specific area and the description of suspected individuals. Based on that info law enforcement can stop, question and frisk, which falls under Terry vs. Ohio.


But the method of stop and frisk cannot be used merely based on race, ethnicity, etc.

Again, as NYPD has found out.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join