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.

 

New cards explain NYC street stops by police

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician
I've defended them myself as a United States Marine, and I understand that they are not trivial for everyone else. I believe it is you who believes that it is trivial, as in, "no matter", that someone should be able to walk around with a large bulky hidden device under their clothes.


Mmm, I didn't say that.


There is nothing trivial about that. There is nothing trivial about someone having a potential bomb under their clothes.


I agree.


There is, however, something trivial about ignoring it.


There is an easy remedy for that ...

Search EVERYONE.




posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reading
I have been stopped and searched all my life living in london, get over yourselves


PRECISELY!!! And look at your Brown-Shirt police state now!? No thank you! This is exactly what those of us who believe in our Constitutional rights are trying to avoid - becoming the UK!



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog


There is, however, something trivial about ignoring it.


There is an easy remedy for that ...

Search EVERYONE.


Don't you think it would be even easier to perform reasonable searches instead of searching everybody?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Oh give me a break !!!!

The reality is we must choose either to live in a FREE society or a SECURE society. You can't have both.



Then you must have experience living in one of the above, right?

Which one?



You're advocating taking away only a little of our Constitutional Freedoms. If you can make an argument for that to get us a little more secure, you can follow the same logic my taking all our Freedoms away to make us even more secure.


Right... and when you put your seatbelt on you are taking away your own freedom.




So do you want to live in a cage or be free? Can't have it both ways.



Can you describe to me what prison is and how it relates to a completely free/secure society?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician
Don't you think it would be even easier to perform reasonable searches instead of searching everybody?


I think "reasonable" means different things to different people.

No matter though, thankfully we have a constitution and a bill of rights to guide us.

We shall see, this is in the courts as we speak.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Haven't you and I been here before? Since you want to take this to the extreme, so shall I.

It appears you believe anarchy would be your Utopia. With no Police protection you can not have a "free" society. Every time you leave your home you will be confronted with a 'criminal' element who believes he is entitled to what you have and will attempt to take it from you. You will return to an empty home. What results is the survivsl of the fittest or the strong preying on the weak. Will the weak then prefer to be "free" or "secure"?

I think you need to reexamine what your "freedom" really means to you.

Yes, the brave have fought and died for our "freedom", not for anarchy. The "freedom" they fought for includes "security". One does not exist, withour the other.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


First and foremost I want to extend my gratitude for your serving serving in the USMC. Great courage Logician. I thank you. Our nation thanks you.
A commitment, bigger than most ordinary commitments, even marriage (lol), which imo is an allegiance and personal dedication, and commitment to our Constitution.
I also took this oath in 95. (Army).
And I stand my ground to protect it against foreign and domestic.
To this day.! I'm a (scrapper) and a Patriot 2, and I love this country.
I'm not bending the Constitution to "curb crime Sdog" (as u mentioned yesterday) or to imply that people's rights are worth less than the law.
Or view the Constitution as obselete! Hell no!
Is our Constitution , right now, being challenged and demised by other interests? Absolutley.
Has it been viewed by elected officials as an obstacle for a more sininster agenda? Absolutely.
Have laws passed that are much more Un-Constitutional than "stop and Frisks" recently? Yes. Am I upset? F*ck yes.
What does bother me, however, is how people take our Constitution and use it as an excuse for self-interest and leisures, an excuse for not alleviating laws, and positive social stigma & structure, and excuse for allowing greater breaches, infractions, and unconditioning consequences @ the expense of other people, of course. It's tiring.

This is curbing the Constitution!

The genious of the Constitution is that our founding fathers, who were great men, beacuse they knew one thing that ALL great men should know.
THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW EVERYTHING!

They knew they were gonna make mistakes, but they made sure they would leave a way to correct them.
They didn't think of themselves as leaders!
They wanted a government of citizens, not royalty, a republic of LISTENERS, not lecturers, a government that can change, not stand still......
Our President isn't king either, no matter how many bombs he can drop, it's why the Constitution never trusted him!!!!!
He's a servant of the people. Like me. A bum!

Atleast I'm a bum who's bliss is in my search of freedom, and justice.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU! It's about other people!

Again, show me that the majority of New Yorkers are against these "stop and Frisks."

It's for the interest and safety of New Yorkers.

Police states evolve from people not complying with the law.!

This is not about YOU!

Once you set foot in a subway station you're in MTA property.
If "Stop and Frisks" make it safer for commuters, and tourists, etc. from CRIMINALS, then good. Maybe it's a f**king hint that we should learn how to behave!

If you don't like it ride a God DaMn Bicycle!!

And get off your asss!



*how's your bag*

[edit on 2-5-2009 by Ben Niceknowinya]

[edit on 2-5-2009 by Ben Niceknowinya]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I´ll quote the great TAO. When the governent interferes too much the people are restless. When the people are restless the government has no control. When there is no control there is chaos for all.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


And Thanx for explaining "probable cause" when someone has "blood" on their hands. You explained it alot better than me devil dog.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician
Originally posted by jfj123
Oh give me a break !!!!

The reality is we must choose either to live in a FREE society or a SECURE society. You can't have both.




Then you must have experience living in one of the above, right?

Which one?

The Constitution, which you don't seem to care about, guarantee's that we are guarded against unreasonable searches.

That's the society I currently live in. Abuses of this CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.



Not all actions by which governmental authorities obtain information from or about a person constitute a search. Therefore, government action triggers the amendment's protections only when the information or evidence at issue was obtained through a "search" within the meaning of the amendment. If no search occurs, no warrant is required. In general, authorities have searched when they have impeded upon a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.



In general, authorities have searched when they have impeded upon a person's reasonable expectation of privacy



Stop and frisk
However, in certain circumstances, authorities are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause. In Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court decided that when a policeman "observes unusual conduct" that leads him to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot" and that the suspicious person has a weapon and is presently dangerous to the policeman or others, he may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk"), to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, the policeman must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant his actions.[20] A vague hunch will not do. Such a search must be temporary and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (i.e., if the policeman stopped you because he had reasonable suspicion to believe that you were driving a stolen car, after confirming that it is not stolen, he cannot force you to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband).[21]

source
en.wikipedia.org...



You're advocating taking away only a little of our Constitutional Freedoms. If you can make an argument for that to get us a little more secure, you can follow the same logic my taking all our Freedoms away to make us even more secure.



Right... and when you put your seatbelt on you are taking away your own freedom.

Driving is not a Constitutional Right but a privilege. There is a HUGE difference.



So do you want to live in a cage or be free? Can't have it both ways.



Can you describe to me what prison is and how it relates to a completely free/secure society?


It's a simple question.
If you want to be secure, you must agree to give up all your freedoms in the name of security.
Are you willing to do this?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben Niceknowinya
 


I think every reasonable person including the courts would consider someone walking around with dripping blood from their hands as valid grounds for questioning.

But this isn't what we're talking about here is it?

It's easy to take the most extreme example, but what if you happen to be of South Asian heritage (like the hospital manager who got stopped 21 times - see the link I provided) just for looking "foreign?"

Racial profiling is illegal and for good reason, again see constitution/bill of rights, but it is happening under this policy as the numbers bear out.

There are valid civil liberty issues here that cannot simply be swept away with the ends justify the means.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by jfj123
 


Haven't you and I been here before? Since you want to take this to the extreme, so shall I.

It appears you believe anarchy would be your Utopia.

Nope. Never said nor implied that. I simply am not interested in seeing people violate Constitutional law.


With no Police protection

At no point did I say we should have no police. Don't be silly.


you can not have a "free" society. Every time you leave your home you will be confronted with a 'criminal' element who believes he is entitled to what you have and will attempt to take it from you. You will return to an empty home. What results is the survivsl of the fittest or the strong preying on the weak. Will the weak then prefer to be "free" or "secure"?

I prefer to live in a society where the Constitution is obeyed.


I think you need to reexamine what your "freedom" really means to you.

I think you need to learn about the United States Constitution.


Yes, the brave have fought and died for our "freedom", not for anarchy. The "freedom" they fought for includes "security". One does not exist, withour the other.

And the more security you want, the less freedom you have which is my whole point. If you start dismissing the Constitution in the name of security, you defeat the entire purpose of it's existence and dishonor the memories of all those who've died to protect it.

Does that clear things up for you?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Actually, you do imply that with every post, including this one. When you say that additional security diminishes freedom, you are implying that the absence of security results in absolute freedom. That is far from reality.

I am quite clear, my friend.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by jfj123
 


Actually, you do imply that with every post, including this one. When you say that additional security diminishes freedom, you are implying that the absence of security results in absolute freedom. That is far from reality.

I am quite clear, my friend.


Again, the more security you want, the less freedom you have. I haven't implied that, I've stated that.

If you want to be completely secure, you must entirely remove freedom.

I've also stated that Constitutional law should be upheld which means I'm not for complete anarchy. I'm simply against violations of the Constitution in favor of more security.

What about this aren't you getting?

[edit on 2-5-2009 by jfj123]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

It's a simple question.
If you want to be secure, you must agree to give up all your freedoms in the name of security.
Are you willing to do this?


I'm not willing to give up security, or give up freedom.

I like my security like I like my freedom: practical.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by jfj123
 


Actually, you do imply that with every post, including this one. When you say that additional security diminishes freedom, you are implying that the absence of security results in absolute freedom. That is far from reality.

I am quite clear, my friend.


Again, the more security you want, the less freedom you have. I haven't implied that, I've stated that.

If you want to be completely secure, you must entirely remove freedom.

I've also stated that Constitutional law should be upheld which means I'm not for complete anarchy. I'm simply against violations of the Constitution in favor of more security.

What about this aren't you getting?

[edit on 2-5-2009 by jfj123]


The constitution provides security.

Therefore, it is taking away your freedom.


Perhaps we can expand on this.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by logician magician]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by jfj123
 


Actually, you do imply that with every post, including this one. When you say that additional security diminishes freedom, you are implying that the absence of security results in absolute freedom. That is far from reality.

I am quite clear, my friend.


Again, the more security you want, the less freedom you have. I haven't implied that, I've stated that.

If you want to be completely secure, you must entirely remove freedom.

I've also stated that Constitutional law should be upheld which means I'm not for complete anarchy. I'm simply against violations of the Constitution in favor of more security.

What about this aren't you getting?

[edit on 2-5-2009 by jfj123]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician


The constitution provides security.

Therefore, it is taking away your freedom.


Perhaps we can expand on this.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by logician magician]


Sure.
We've been talking about security that goes beyond what is allowed by Constitutional law and not security in general.

And FYI, The Constitution guarantee's Freedom.

I'll be happy to expand on this all you like


[edit on 2-5-2009 by jfj123]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by jfj123

It's a simple question.
If you want to be secure, you must agree to give up all your freedoms in the name of security.
Are you willing to do this?


I'm not willing to give up security, or give up freedom.

I like my security like I like my freedom: practical.


If you're willing to give up Constitutional freedoms for security, you are giving up freedom.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by jfj123
 



Again, the more security you want, the less freedom you have. I haven't implied that, I've stated that.

If you want to be completely secure, you must entirely remove freedom.


[edit on 2-5-2009 by jfj123]


I'm going to try this quote thing again.

Exactly. And, conversely, the more freedom you want, the less security you have. If you want to be completely free, you must entirely remove security.

What you aren't getting is that I've never advocated the dismissal of the Constitution. I just believe that, for the good of us all, we must find a balance. The world is much different today, than in 1787.

Edit: Damn. It didn't work, again. Sorry

[edit on 2-5-2009 by WTFover]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join