Why is there no prosecution for the crimes?

[smilesammich 10,727]

Denying Due Process

DENYING DUE PROCESS?! trump wants national stop and frisk. that's going above and beyond rich

[Dashinka 24,512]

DENYING DUE PROCESS?! trump wants national stop and frisk. that's going above and beyond rich

The argument was always that Stop and Frisk potentially violated the 4th Amendment, not the 5th. Regardless, Terry v Ohio answered that question a long time ago.

[Dashinka 24,512]

so, you want democrats to offer a different presidential candidate 18 days before the election, when absentee ballots have been cast and early voting underway, because a democrat is under investigation for making money off of trash contracts in macomb county and refuses to step down from is supervisory position (similarly the county is not dropping their contract with the trash company that was paying dude off at this time). seems like a bit of a leap of reason to me.

Not at all, now it is too late. Hillary should have stepped down 18 months ago when in the heart of the FBI investigation that of course only proved to show us that Hillary is judged by a different set of laws.

My only reason for showing this example was to show the corruption of the Democrats since it was current. I could have brought up Kwame K., Rod B., Jesse Jr., etc. the list is never ending.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Bill & Katya

[smilesammich 10,727]

The argument was always that Stop and Frisk potentially violated the 4th Amendment, not the 5th. Regardless, Terry v Ohio answered that question a long time ago.

the 4th, the 5th, and the 9th.

[Dashinka 24,512]

the 4th, the 5th, and the 9th.

The 9th? Please elaborate.

[smilesammich 10,727]

The 9th? Please elaborate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

btw i totally believe that if stop and frisk were implemented to focus on white males, primarily - you know for fanatics/fringe/terror- you wouldn't need a second of elaboration - you'd make the connection all on your own.

[Dashinka 24,512]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

btw i totally believe that if stop and frisk were implemented to focus on white males, primarily - you know for fanatics/fringe/terror- you wouldn't need a second of elaboration - you'd make the connection all on your own.

I guess I don't fully understand your logic here. I know what the 9th Amendment says, but I fail to see the relevance with respect to the 4th and Terry v Ohio? Are you suggesting that Stop and Frisk isn't a search and seizure, and should be perceived as a right not enumerated in the Constitution?

As to the racial component, also not sure what you are talking about. Do the police give a pass to the fanatics and terrorist that are white? Besides don't these type of people come in al colors? If I was a police officer, I think I would Frisk anyone of any color that fit the category you described.

According to Terry, the police need to be able to describe an actual reasonable cause of why they stopped and frisked someone and not rely just on intuition. If they cannot do this, then any evidence found should be suppressed as the person receives their due process rights.

The simple fact is that Stop and Frisk has been found to be constitutional via Terry v Ohio, and if it can be proven that it is being used through racial profiling, then there should be an investigation.

[smilesammich 10,727]

I guess I don't fully understand your logic here. I know what the 9th Amendment says, but I fail to see the relevance with respect to the 4th and Terry v Ohio? Are you suggesting that Stop and Frisk isn't a search and seizure, and should be perceived as a right not enumerated in the Constitution?

As to the racial component, also not sure what you are talking about. Do the police give a pass to the fanatics and terrorist that are white? Besides don't these type of people come in al colors? If I was a police officer, I think I would Frisk anyone of any color that fit the category you described.

According to Terry, the police need to be able to describe an actual reasonable cause of why they stopped and frisked someone and not rely just on intuition. If they cannot do this, then any evidence found should be suppressed as the person receives their due process rights.

The simple fact is that Stop and Frisk has been found to be constitutional via Terry v Ohio, and if it can be proven that it is being used through racial profiling, then there should be an investigation.

you're not looking at the reality of stop and frisk, how it is applied, and how it affects those targeted.

part in bold, if your life is subsequently ended or severely disrupted after such assertion of 'actual reasonable cause' there is never opportunity for due process or even assessment if a miscarriage of due process resulted in loss of a person's rights.

don't get all offended, i'm not calling you racist or anything of the sort, i'm just saying if you and your family were subject to stop and frisk on a daily basis and these encounters increased your probability of having a potentially negative interaction with law enforcement or consequences which impede your personal freedom and safety, you'd start picking a part what is required for police to properly describe an 'actual reasonable cause' as well.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

the 4th, the 5th, and the 9th.

Stop and frisk as it has played out in New York City violates the 4th and 14th amendments, since in many cases there was no reasonable cause for the stop, which is at the heart of Terry. And since Herr Trump envisions the rollout of Giuliani's vision of stop and frisk, these are the relevant amendments here, since they both are concerned with due process.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/stop-and-frisk_tactics_by_new_york_cops_violated_fourth_and_14th_amendments/

Arguably the policy also violates the 5th where the stop is for a suspected felony where the stop teeters over the line into restraint. Nice article on the interplay of Terry and Miranda here: https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/73.3/73_3_Swift.pdf

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

you're not looking at the reality of stop and frisk, how it is applied, and how it affects those targeted.

part in bold, if your life is subsequently ended or severely disrupted after such assertion of 'actual reasonable cause' there is never opportunity for due process or even assessment if a miscarriage of due process resulted in loss of a person's rights.

don't get all offended, i'm not calling you racist or anything of the sort, i'm just saying if you and your family were subject to stop and frisk on a daily basis and these encounters increased your probability of having a potentially negative interaction with law enforcement or consequences which impede your personal freedom and safety, you'd start picking a part what is required for police to properly describe an 'actual reasonable cause' as well.

There's a real difference between a Terry stop and what was going on in New York. See, Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F. Supp. 2d 540 (2013). Terry stops are useful and of course constitutional when they are carried out correctly.

[smilesammich 10,727]

There's a real difference between a Terry stop and what was going on in New York. See, Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F. Supp. 2d 540 (2013). Terry stops are useful and of course constitutional when they are carried out correctly.

agreed, the part in bold is my bit of contention. we are in full crisis mode when it comes to police departments' accountability and also the public's faith in police ability to carry out without trampling individual rights.

that and trump isn't championing stop and frisk in it's useful ideal, he's championing it to save non whites from getting gunned down in their very own very bad democratically run neighborhoods whilst walking to the store for a loaf of non partisan bread. very slippery and very distorted, par for course.

[Dashinka 24,512]

Stop and frisk as it has played out in New York City violates the 4th and 14th amendments, since in many cases there was no reasonable cause for the stop, which is at the heart of Terry. And since Herr Trump envisions the rollout of Giuliani's vision of stop and frisk, these are the relevant amendments here, since they both are concerned with due process.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/stop-and-frisk_tactics_by_new_york_cops_violated_fourth_and_14th_amendments/

Arguably the policy also violates the 5th where the stop is for a suspected felony where the stop teeters over the line into restraint. Nice article on the interplay of Terry and Miranda here: https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/73.3/73_3_Swift.pdf

The federal judge who issued that ruling was criticized by the 2nd Court of Appeals and her ruling was stayed. It was never argued beyond that point, so it remains legal via Terry. NYPD has greatly reduced the use of it however, and so far there has not been an appreciable increase in crime begging the question whether it was effective in the first place.

My only point here is that it is the Dems that are attacking the Constitution and in particular the 1st, 2nd, and 5th Amendments. Trump did advocate for SaF, which still remains constitutional based on Terry.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit criticized Judge Scheindlin, saying she ran afoul of the judiciary code of conduct by giving the appearance of bias and maneuvering to hear the lawsuit. The appeal court removed her from the case and granted a stay of her ruling.

But in 2014, de Blasio announced that he was dropping the citys appeal of her initial ruling and would agree to her recommended reforms.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/27/stop-and-frisk-both-trump-and-clinton-got-it-wrong/

Edited October 20, 2016 by Bill & Katya

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Critical:

But in 2014, de Blasio announced that he was dropping the city's appeal of her initial ruling and would agree to her recommended reforms.

No one here is arguing that stop and frisk, a true Terry stop, is unconstitutional. How the NYPD were performing these stops was wrong. Scheindlin's ruling was not reversed -- it was stayed pending appeal, an appeal that was not pursued. Further, and crucially, the ruling did not hold that the NYPD's stops were unconstitutional per se, or that such stops must be, well, stopped. What was unconstitutional was the way the stops were being carried out.

We do not know how this would have gone on appeal. Further, Scheindlin's removal raised many eyebrows in the legal community (Jeffrey Toobin's, for one).

[Dashinka 24,512]

Critical:

No one here is arguing that stop and frisk, a true Terry stop, is unconstitutional. How the NYPD were performing these stops was wrong. Scheindlin's ruling was not reversed -- it was stayed pending appeal, an appeal that was not pursued. Further, and crucially, the ruling did not hold that the NYPD's stops were unconstitutional per se, or that such stops must be, well, stopped. What was unconstitutional was the way the stops were being carried out.

We do not know how this would have gone on appeal. Further, Scheindlin's removal raised many eyebrows in the legal community (Jeffrey Toobin's, for one).

Actually that is a bit incorrect. There was an arguement raised that Stop and Frisk was unconstitutional since Trump advocated for it (i.e. Trump is attacking the 4th amendment). I am not supporting his position here, but was only pointing out that Stop and Frisk was in fact ruled constitutional. i don't think the Trump advocation for it was anything beyond the rules outlined in Terry.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I missed the person who mentioned Trump -- my apologies. I think we are pretty much on the same page here. However, it is impossible to tell what Trump thinks a constitutional Terry stop looks like because, well, he's Trump and his interpretations of various concept are rather, shall we say, fluid.