posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:02 AM
There were some recent headlines to present the illusion that NYC's "stop and frisk" had been ruled unconstitutional.
Stop And Frisk Violated Rights
Of New Yorkers, Judge Rules
Judge Rejects New York’s
Getting past the misleading headlines, the articles make one thing painfully clear...
Scheindlin noted she was not putting an end to the practice, which is constitutional, but was reforming the way the NYPD implemented its
The judge called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms, including the use of body-worn cameras for some patrol officers, though she was
“not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk.”
that nothing will change!
"Constitutional", really Huffington Post, really???
And to add drama to the staged conflict, Bloomberg is "outraged!":
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg angrily accused the judge of deliberately denying the city “a fair trial” and said the city would file an appeal.
Striking a defiant tone, Mr. Bloomberg said, “You’re not going to see any change in tactics overnight.” He said he hoped the appeal process
would allow the current stop-and-frisk practices to continue through the end of his administration
Appeal what??? The judge didn't do anything except make some suggestions. Theres nothing to appeal, she didnt rule against it.
They have absolutely no intention of stopping the ever increasing police state.
edit on 22-8-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)