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: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

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]


Do you think the Constitution has any flaws?

If it doesn't have any flaws, do you consider it to be an infallible, perfect thing - like.. the bible?

If you think it has flaws, can you list some of them?




posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Again, I'm not against security.
I am against violating the Constitution to obtain it.

The world is always changing but our Constitution has worked pretty good to keep our freedoms for quite a long time and I'd like to see that continue without compromise.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

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.


What do you mean by "give up" ?

You speak in too many absolutes to make sense.

Do you think it's possible to "exchange" say... 1/16 of a quantified constitutional freedom with an equivalent amount of security?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
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.



Hey SDog.....round 2......*ding ding*
btw, I'm a (ex) boxer......so if I come across as a raw insesnsitive person, you're prpbably right, I have alot of fire inside of me. But I'm the kindest person @ heart, I promise. Matta of fact, I'd buy you a beer if I could......we might have a scuffle in the parking lot, but I'd buy you a beer for your thought and intellect brutha.

And yes! It's "exactly" what we're talking about! The laws of probable cause.....and the justification for these searches.
Ohhhhhh.....and the racial profiling. I know.
Don't bother with the link.......


You know what? We live in America. It's MULTI-racial. We're ALL foreign!
Of course you are going to hear "racial profiling"
Especially New York. Again, 40% of New Yorkers are foreign born!
Can't you understand this concept!
WHo's American, really? See any Indians around?
In this country you're introduced to American Politics the second you set foot in a playground, as a child my friend.
What if I told you I swore to defend the American Constitution, willing to sacrifice my life for it, at war, so my children and their children can enjoy the freedoms I did. Have a better future.
AND what if I told you I wasn't born here, in the states?
Would you still believe me? Well, it's true.
I'm Italian-American. I came to the states at a very young age.
Do you have any freaking idea what kind of hardships my heritage went through to become Americans?
But you know what, we endured it. Everything comes with a sacrifice, remember that!
The Irish, the Italians, The Dutch, Germans, Jews you name it........we all went through it, and we built this country!
I don't even want to beging to tell you the stories I heard of when people started migrating to this country, what they went throuh to become citizens. Changing their names, spitting in their faces, the beatings, the unlawful arrests, I could go on and on.......
Cut this liberal sh*t out.!

I ask you now.......WHAT have YOU done to preserve Constitutional rights?
Have you been involved with protests?
Involved in supporting these people in their court cases?
Served in Armed Forces?
Became a police officer?
What action have YOU taken???

Or are you (all) just ranting behind a keyboard, hoping some1 will agree with your argument/debate and in the end feel better about yourselves @ the end of the day, because you felt you did something good.
You did shaize!

This is where you can't fathom the Constitution. Because the Constitution protects ALL the people.

If the laws or Amendments bend with "probable cause" in searches, (which is completely legal, ARRRRRRGGHHHH) to benefit the interest of the people OVERALL, then according to the Constitution's design by the founding father who created it, it's being practiced accordingly, and legally, because they new society would grow, and evolve. That's the purpose of it's design! To protect the people!
Can't you just think for one second about some1 else and not yourselves!!!
It's not about YOU!


Anger is a gift. Yes. But I'm convinced you're focusing your fire and energy towards a weak and selfish interest.

I'd like to see where you stand when it comes down to SACRIFICING YOUR LIFE FOR the Constitution.
I hope you're beside me protecting this beautiful TERRA when the UN is here with foreign troops. When it really matters.


Peace. Maybe not......









posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


Again,
I think the Constitution has done a pretty good job helping us guarantee our freedoms.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by jfj123

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.


What do you mean by "give up" ?

You speak in too many absolutes to make sense.

Do you think it's possible to "exchange" say... 1/16 of a quantified constitutional freedom with an equivalent amount of security?


NO.
Because if you can justify 1/16, then you'll be able to justify 1/8, then 1/4 then 1/2, etc...
It's a very slippery slope.
You're advocating violating the Constitution, "just a little".



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by WTFover
 


Again, I'm not against security.
I am against violating the Constitution to obtain it.


You're not coming across as clear.

You yourself said, "If you want to be secure, you must agree to give up all your freedoms in the name of security."
What type of security are you for exactly?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by jfj123

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.


What do you mean by "give up" ?

You speak in too many absolutes to make sense.

Do you think it's possible to "exchange" say... 1/16 of a quantified constitutional freedom with an equivalent amount of security?


NO.
Because if you can justify 1/16, then you'll be able to justify 1/8, then 1/4 then 1/2, etc...
It's a very slippery slope.
You're advocating violating the Constitution, "just a little".


Well, at least you can point out your own logical fallacies!


So, you must think that convicted murderers who get out of prison should be able to own any type of weapon they want, such as a .50 cal.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

New cards explain NYC street stops by police


www.salon.com

New York City police have begun handing out small cards telling people why they were stopped and searched on city streets.

It follows a study of so-called "stop-and-frisk" tactics that says officers need to better explain what they're doing.

The cards cite a state code allowing stops by officers if they reasonably think a person may be a suspect. They say "the NYPD regrets any inconvenience" if it wrongly stops someone.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:



www.ny1.com
www.ny1.com
www.nydailynews.com


A Suspect of what though? Something has to have happen for them to suspect somebody of doing something. So if nothing has happened , how can they suspect you of being a part of nothing?

That makes no sense.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by WTFover
 


Again, I'm not against security.
I am against violating the Constitution to obtain it.


You're not coming across as clear.

You yourself said, "If you want to be secure, you must agree to give up all your freedoms in the name of security."
What type of security are you for exactly?


As I've stated before, I am for security as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.

Let me clarify.
The Constitution is a set of rules that give us certain rights.
When security goes beyond what the Constitution allows for, we must make a decision; either go along with the unconstitutional new security or stick with the Constitution and strike down the unconstitutional security rule(s).
Now if we choose the new security, we have just sacrificed a freedom(s)/right(s). The more of this security we want, the more rights we must give up to have it.

Does that clarify things a bit?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

New cards explain NYC street stops by police


www.salon.com

New York City police have begun handing out small cards telling people why they were stopped and searched on city streets.

It follows a study of so-called "stop-and-frisk" tactics that says officers need to better explain what they're doing.

The cards cite a state code allowing stops by officers if they reasonably think a person may be a suspect. They say "the NYPD regrets any inconvenience" if it wrongly stops someone.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:



www.ny1.com
www.ny1.com
www.nydailynews.com


A Suspect of what though? Something has to have happen for them to suspect somebody of doing something. So if nothing has happened , how can they suspect you of being a part of nothing?

That makes no sense.


... and if you are suspected as being part of nothing, then why does everyone have a problem with it?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


Go back and read the wording on the actual card, in the second post.

It gives a couple of examples of actions that may be suspicious.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

Well, at least you can point out your own logical fallacies!




If you consider the Constitution a fallacy, you're living in the wrong country. You might want to consider one that has a bit more security.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by ADVISOR
 


Yes but ...


Recent studies by police departments and researchers confirm that police stop racial and ethnic minority citizens more often than whites, relative to their proportions in the population. However, it has been argued stop rates more accurately reflect rates of crimes committed by each ethnic group, or that stop rates reflect elevated rates in specific social areas such as neighborhoods or precincts. Most of the research on stop rates and police-citizen interactions has focused on traffic stops, and analyses of pedestrian stops are rare. In this paper, we analyze data from 175,000 pedestrian stops by the New York Police Department over a fifteen-month period. We disaggregate stops by police precinct, and compare stop rates by racial and ethnic group controlling for previous race-specific arrest rates. We use hierarchical multilevel models to adjust for precinct-level variability, thus directly addressing the question of geographic heterogeneity that arises in the analysis of pedestrian stops. We find that persons of African and Hispanic descent were stopped more frequently than whites, even after controlling for precinct variability and race-specific estimates of crime participation. abstract


(emphasis mine)

Plus you have to admit, the reasons as described in this new card they are distributing could stop just about anyone for a search.

Having said that, I don't take issue with the police per se, if such is the policy they are within their rights and duties to enforce it. This issue is with the policy and policy makers who will apparently have to defend this in court.


Yea but some parts of the city are pretty much all black. So If they stop anybody randomly it will be a black person just because there are 95% black people in that area.

So the stat is off in my opinion.

If only black or hispanics live in the area then of course you aren't going to stop whites because there are none in the area.

And since long ago blacks and hispanics all they could offord were homes in bad areas because it is cheap, the crime rate in those areas is higher so it just kind of happens.

Unless you get an idiot cop who tries to be hero cop.


In my experience with the law, I always tell the 100% truth and be honest.

It is there job to know when you are lying . Don't insult their training and them, just tell the truth and sometimes they will respect that and let you off even if you have committed a minor offense.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


Star from me.

Very good point. According to both US and Texas law, it is unlawful for a person convicted of certain crimes to possess a firearm. However, the 2nd Amendment guarantees a citizen's right to possess a firearm. What gives here. Is that convicted criminal no longer a citizen or has he been stripped of a "freedom" in order to provide "security" for the masses?

Thanks LM, I hadn't thought of that angle before.

What say you jfj123?

[edit on 2-5-2009 by WTFover]

[edit on 2-5-2009 by WTFover]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by WTFover
 


Again, I'm not against security.
I am against violating the Constitution to obtain it.


You're not coming across as clear.

You yourself said, "If you want to be secure, you must agree to give up all your freedoms in the name of security."
What type of security are you for exactly?


As I've stated before, I am for security as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.

Let me clarify.
The Constitution is a set of rules that give us certain rights.
When security goes beyond what the Constitution allows for, we must make a decision; either go along with the unconstitutional new security or stick with the Constitution and strike down the unconstitutional security rule(s).
Now if we choose the new security, we have just sacrificed a freedom(s)/right(s). The more of this security we want, the more rights we must give up to have it.

Does that clarify things a bit?


You're still coming across as irrational.

The world changes, and so does the constitution.

You say we "get our freedoms from the constitution" which is very interesting on many levels, so let me ask you a question:

If we change the constitution, say, by legally repealing the 4th amendment...

What just happened?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by logician magician

Well, at least you can point out your own logical fallacies!




If you consider the Constitution a fallacy, you're living in the wrong country. You might want to consider one that has a bit more security.


I shouldn't have expected you to notice the ironic and obvious.

Sorry for overestimating your intelligence.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben Niceknowinya
 


Oh dear, I see that having served in the armed forces apparently entitles one to a more legitimate opinion.

There's no need to get personal you know, notwithstanding your apparent vexation, I believe I have earned the right to my opinion ... I don't feel I need to explain myself to you in that regard, my mirror and my conscience tell me so. And I am an American, by choice by the way, so what I "do" to preserve constitutional rights does not require defense.

As far for being a "liberal," though I am not one and despite your tonality, I find no insolence in that accusation, though if it makes you feel better please carry on with the labeling.

You keep harping on this "it's not about you" bumper sticker but as we all know a populace is but a collection of "I" and "You." Again, under your premise there is a fundamental constitutional shift of the "reasonable" principle and one that erodes individual freedom. Not only MY freedom but YOURS and everyone else's as well. YOU may be ok with that, others including myself are not, and as you YOU so eloquently stated, it's not about YOU.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

You're still coming across as irrational.

I was thinking the same of you.


The world changes, and so does the constitution.

I have no interest in changing our rights and freedoms to be less then they currently are.


You say we "get our freedoms from the constitution" which is very interesting on many levels, so let me ask you a question:

If we change the constitution, say, by legally repealing the 4th amendment...

What just happened?

Then it's no longer the Constitution the country was built on. If you're referring to amending the Constitution:


Once proposed — whether submitted by Congress or by a national convention — amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states to take effect. Article Five gives Congress the option of requiring ratification by state legislatures or by special convention. The convention method of ratification has only been used to approve the 21st Amendment. Article Five currently places only one limitation on the amending power — that no amendment can deprive a state of its equal representation in the Senate without that state's consent (limitations regarding slavery and taxation having expired in 1808.)

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I also want to address this:


Originally posted by Ben Niceknowinya
I don't even want to beging to tell you the stories I heard of when people started migrating to this country, what they went throuh to become citizens. Changing their names, spitting in their faces, the beatings, the unlawful arrests, I could go on and on.......


Undoubtably that is true ...

In fact you can jump straight to slavery if you want to list all the terrible things that immigrants have been subjected to throughout history.

However, thankfully for all of us, societies evolve and each generation of immigrants enjoys lesser persecution.

Using past transgressions to comparatively legitimize present ones only weakens your argument.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join