Stop And Frisk Violated Rights Of New Yorkers, Judge Rules

page: 2
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Finally, common sense.




posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Viesczy
 


I'm not from NY, never been there nor do I ever want to go there.

My guess based on what I can gather from other's testimony is they will beat the crap out of you and charge you with resisting an officer with violence.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Obfuscation BS meaningless chatter and debate....

HERE IS THE LAW

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


If you can read this clearly worded BED ROCK CONSTITUTIONAL LAW and even begin to debate
that this LAW somehow allows for US citizens to be detained, questioned, and frisked without
consent or a judge's order....

....YOU ARE A MORON
edit on 12-8-2013 by rival because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
So the Feds are going to monitor the abuse of the constitution in New York? Who's going to monitor the abuse of the constitution in Washington?



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by theconspirator
 


Scheindlin noted she was not putting an end to the practice, which is constitutional, but was reforming the way the NYPD implemented its stops.


How the heck is this constitutional?

Is this judge a mental patient?

In other words, nothing will change...

edit on 13-8-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
If you are stopped and frisked, simply follow these rules:



  1. Ask the officers to show you proper ID (badge). Do so politely, even if you are upset.
  2. Comply, so they don't have any argument against you. Try to record the event.
  3. When the procedure is over, ask their badge numbers, IDs and precinct data. Again, be polite. Give them no reason or motive to complain.
  4. Formally press charges, using the judge's ruling to substantiate your case. If you have a recording, present it as evidence.



Everybody should do this. The Constitution is there for a reason.
edit on 13-8-2013 by RageAgainstFascism because: Added information.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by RageAgainstFascism
 


"1.Ask the officers to show you proper ID (badge). Do so politely, even if you are upset."

Half the time if said officers even catch you looking at the number on there shoulder its enough to ensure a night in the cells on some trumped up charge usually resisting arrest or Police assault.


"2.Comply, so they don't have any argument against you. Try to record the event."

Same crap applies, even reaching into your pocket to acquire your phone can result in arrest these days!

"3.When the procedure is over, ask their badge numbers, IDs and precinct data. Again, be polite. Give them no reason or motive to complain."

Good luck with that also buddy because any attempt to acquire additional information from these totalitarian scum generally results in arrest no matter how polite one may seem to be, its there word against yours and there the ones with the power of arrest.

"4.Formally press charges, using the judge's ruling to substantiate your case. If you have a recording, present it as evidence."

Don't know about the U.S.A but here in the U.K you cannot sue the Police Force unless they actively show malice towards you!

What a predicament!
LoL
edit on 13-8-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by rival
Obfuscation BS meaningless chatter and debate....

HERE IS THE LAW

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Their search and seizures are reasonable... literally, they have a reason. It may not be rational but there is a reason, and that is any reason they want to make up. It may not be a good reason, but there is one.


... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,

Probable cause? As in probability? As in, "what is the probability (chance) that the person wearing a business suit, walking along the sidewalk is carrying an illegal weapon, has drugs on them, etc, and what is the probability (chance) that the guy wearing the hoodie and slouched over, standing in the shadow does?


... supported by Oath or affirmation

That would be the cop's oath/affirmation.


... and particularly describing the place to be searched

That would be you, and your clothing, and your luggage, backpack, etc.


... and the persons or things to be seized.

Again, the person would be you. The things to be seized would be any and all contraband useful for criminal activity.



If you can read this clearly worded BED ROCK CONSTITUTIONAL LAW and even begin to debate
that this LAW somehow allows for US citizens to be detained, questioned, and frisked without
consent or a judge's order....


I left the last part of the quote out for obvious reasons.

I don't agree with it, but this is how the spirit of our laws are circumvented and twisted; by specific language.

It's a tall order, but I wonder what would happen if everyone started dressing in nice clothing, business suits, dresses and long skirts, nice shoes, clean cut, good posture, etc?
edit on 13-8-2013 by Flux8 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-8-2013 by Flux8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
We are no longer free... Thanks R E D C O A T S ! for obeying the unconstitutional actions.. you are excrement

how can anyone think this is OK?


my, my, my.




stopping people with NO CAUSE...


NYPD ----------------> YOU ARE ALL TRAITORS TO THE REPUBLIC!!


WOW!!



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Flux8
 


THE PROBABILITY of a guy in a suit having drugs is as high as anyone, only its a more 'refined' drug..



In AMERICA... we have sunken so low..


putrid bootlickers actually are allowed to breathe our air... sickening!!

all those people thinking it is ok to stop people without reason..

UNREASONABLE means unreasonable.. including outlandish reasons... or reasons unconstitutional..

edit on 13-8-2013 by HanzHenry because: connection



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by RageAgainstFascism
 



Don't know about the U.S.A but here in the U.K you cannot sue the Police Force unless they actively show malice towards you!

What a predicament!
LoL
edit on 13-8-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)


That means that they're above the law, which in turn means the system is broken.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by RageAgainstFascism
 


"That means that they're above the law, which in turn means the system is broken."

The system has not worked for quite sometime! Its existence serves but one purpose these days, to hold in place the status quo.

This is achieved by exerting a measure of totalitarian control over the populace under the guise of maintaining law and order.

Trust me if a criminal has it in there mind to commit a crime the Police will very seldom if at all be able to prevent it from happening. Essentially they are damage control who turn up after the fact.

Except of course when they're busy harassing innocents, so they can issue fixed penalty fines for stupid misdemeanour crimes that generate revenue for TPTB.


So who are the Police really policing/extorting? My answer would have to be the Sheeple AKA the general populace.

There was a time when Criminals were afraid of the Police who served the people. These days however the Police are afraid of the criminals and the people are afraid of there Police force. And with dam good reason!
edit on 13-8-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
It is very amazing to me that one person (a liberal judge) can make a ruling on something that has been in effect for many years now, however, she is just one of the liberal-progressives in the US that wants to change everything to their point of view. The police do not stop someone on public property and search without probable cause.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Binkylove
 


"The police do not stop someone on public property and search without probable cause."

Wana bet?
What if there shift is ending and they have made no arrests? Every bent Cop knows you don't return home empty handed!


After all you have to be seen to be doing your Job.

Unless you mean "probable cause" there board or just have a chip on there shoulder combined with a bit of uniform syndrome. LoL
edit on 13-8-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by RageAgainstFascism
 

....

"2.Comply, so they don't have any argument against you. Try to record the event."

Same crap applies, even reaching into your pocket to acquire your phone can result in arrest these days!

.....

Good luck with that also buddy because any attempt to acquire additional information from these totalitarian scum generally results in arrest no matter how polite one may seem to be, its there word against yours and there the ones with the power of arrest.


I'd like to add if you reach in your pocket in front of an aggressive cop you run the risk of getting shot. He/She will simply say I though he was reaching for a weapon and never have to face a jury for murder.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Binkylove
 


Yes they do. All of the time. 99% of the time it happens in the ghetto. I hate playing the race card, and just for the record I am not using it right now. But if someone, anyone, is dressed looking "hood", hoodie, baggy pants with boxers showing, fitted cap down low, blah blah blah you know what im talking about... cops pull over and stop and frisk these people all the time. Even when they are just walking down the street, mind their own business.

You can say "well dont dress that way and it wont happen anymore" well guess what, we are in a "free" country, and the way a person looks is not saposed to be a crime. But police look at this American's image as a crime, Violate these Americans god given rights to security and privacy, then drive away acting like they just protected the community.

Violating any innocent Americans rights is wrong. It has been happening for too long because half of America doesnt see it, therefore doesnt beleive it exists.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
It is not exactly a good ruling. My understanding is they ruled that 'stop and frisk' is okay so long as they do not disproportionally target someone based on race.

'Stop and frisk' is going to continue and the 4th Amendment is dead.
I know i'm going to get some flak for this, but I would say that is mostly the fault of the opponents of stop-and-frisk (the following is completely anecdotal). A lot of opposition I've seen against this idiotic law was based around the fact that it disproportionally targeted minorities (I too was guilty of this).

Not that disproportionally targeting minorities is a good thing, just that everybody focused on the race aspect of stop-and-frisk, and not the police being able to detain whomever they want aspect. A thing like that can send the message that giving the police that power is ok.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Literally, the law breaks no constitutional rights. It fulfills all requirements of the 4th amendment, to the letter, as I've pointed out above. Unfortunately, there is a lot of wiggle room in our constitution because of how it is worded.

Now if we were to look at the history and reasoning of the 4th amendment (the spirit of it) I think most would agree that "Stop and frisk" is directly against the amendment.

wiki


In 1756, the colony of Massachusetts enacted legislation that barred the use of general warrants. This represented the first law in American history curtailing the use of seizure power. Its creation largely stemmed from the great public outcry over the Excise Act of 1754, which gave tax collectors unlimited powers to interrogate colonists concerning their use of goods subject to customs and permitted the use of a general warrant known as a writ of assistance, allowing them to search the homes of colonists and seize "prohibited and uncustomed" goods.[6]

A crisis erupted over the writs of assistance on December 27, 1760 when the news of King George II's death on October 23 arrived in Boston. All writs automatically expired six months after the death of the King and would have had to be re-issued by King George III, the new king, to remain valid.[7]

In mid-January 1761, a group of over 50 merchants represented by James Otis, petitioned the court to have hearings on the issue. During the five-hour hearing on February 23, 1761, Otis vehemently denounced British colonial policies, including their sanction of general warrants and writs of assistance.[8] Future US President John Adams, who was present in the courtroom when Otis spoke, viewed these events as "the spark in which originated the American Revolution.”[9] However, the court ruled against Otis.[10]

Because of the name he had made for himself in attacking the writs, Otis was elected to the Massachusetts colonial legislature and helped pass legislation requiring that special writs of assistance be "granted by any judge or justice of the peace upon information under oath by any officer of the customs" and barring all other writs. The governor overturned the legislation, finding it contrary to English law and parliamentary sovereignty.[11]

Seeing the danger general warrants presented, the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) explicitly forbade the use of general warrants. This prohibition became a precedent for the Fourth Amendment:[12]

"That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted."
edit on 14-8-2013 by Flux8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Binkylove
It is very amazing to me that one person (a liberal judge) can make a ruling on something that has been in effect for many years now, however, she is just one of the liberal-progressives in the US that wants to change everything to their point of view. The police do not stop someone on public property and search without probable cause.


I want to live in this fantasy land of yours.


(This is going to be a long one. *takes a deep breath*)

Speaking as a New Yorker who serves people who are most targeted by and one who has been a victim of “Stop and Frisk”, that, sir or madam, is a steaming pile of... garbage.

I had been stopped for what the police describe as “furtive movements”. Apparently, the police did not like the way I walked to the train station after a long day of work. You see, I made the mistake of putting one foot in front of the other while being in a low income, inner city neighborhood.

After I had paid my subway fare, the police just rushed up behind me (a 5’2, 130lb, wise Latina
) and pushed me to the side of the platform. They started asking me questions like what I was “doing in the neighborhood at that time of night?” As soon as I realized what was going on, I stated that this was a violation of my fourth amendment rights, and that if they were going to search me in spite of my objections, there should be a female officer present to do the search. I asked if I was being arrested or charged with a crime. I did not answer any of their questions “Stop and Frisk”. The officers were obviously not expecting to stop someone who was articulate, was (college) educated, and had paid a modicum of attention in civics class at her NYC public school.

They began to handle me roughly while I was moved to a more “secure location.” Luckily for me, my job offers prepaid legal service, and I have an attorney on call 24 hours a day. Once I was able to get an officer to listen to my request to speak to my attorney and showed them her card (they kept saying that since I was not being arrested, I did not need a lawyer, swear to Bob!), I was immediately let go. I tried to get names and badge numbers while I was held, but I couldn’t since there was a lot of “Look down!” and “Face the wall!” It was one of the few times I can say that I was genuinely scared for my life.

I must stress that at NO POINT was I ever disrespectful. I did not have an attitude. I kept my voice at the same volume level and peppered everything with plenty of, “Yes, officer” and “No, officer.” Ever since, I have made little cards for my clients to carry on their person that have the fourth amendment on them. I tell my clients to read and remember it. For those clients who can’t read or have trouble, I read along with them and tell them the most important parts (though it’s all important, isn’t it.) I tell them when stopped by the police for “Stop and Frisk”, to immediately state it’s a violation of their fourth amendment rights (the same way the “random bag searches” at the train stations are, and that they don’t have to subject themselves to it. They can go to another subway station without being searched, though it is an inconvenience.) Again, because of the nature of my work, all of my clients have lawyers, and I tell them to ask for them immediately (no, they are not criminals).

I know that not all cops are bad. I’m related to some, and for a time, I even thought about joining the NYPD in the hopes of making a change from within. I know they risk their lives every day. I am just tired of being in fear of the cops and living in a police state. This has existed in the minority and low income communities for many years. The only thing that is different now is that privilege is not enough to shield the middle and upper classes from its existence.

For those of you who want to make cards of your own, here is what I use. It fits on the Avery 5160 size labels using size 7.5 Calibri font in small caps:


AMENDMENT IV OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED.





top topics
 
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join