• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYPD surveillance of students called 'disgusting'

And Mayor Michael Bloomberg said his police department's monitoring of Muslims - even outside the city at colleges in Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and upstate New York - was "legal," "appropriate" and "constitutional."

Effing prick. There really is nothing more I can add.
 
what makes you think NYPD have the right to make an arrest outside of New York?

guess what....they don't.

when they leave New York State, they are regular citizens.....and have no right to carry their guns or make arrests.

I never said they could make an arrest as in an arresting officer... However, they could legally detain anyone in an act of committing a crime, ANYWHERE it was taking place, just like you and I could in most circumstances.


Tim-
 
Last edited:
And Mayor Michael Bloomberg said his police department's monitoring of Muslims - even outside the city at colleges in Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and upstate New York - was "legal," "appropriate" and "constitutional."

Effing prick. There really is nothing more I can add.


he threatened the NYC Council, that if they didn't vote to give him three terms, he would personally finance their opposition in the next election.

yeah, this man is hard to defend sometimes.
 
I never said they could make an arrest... However, they could legally detain anyone in an act of committing a crime, ANYWHERE it was taking place, just like you and I could in most circumstances.


Tim-

sure, if we see someone being mugged, killed, raped, or a house or car being robbed.
 
sure, if we see someone being mugged, killed, raped, or a house or car being robbed.

Well, yeah, that's right. I imagine that if XYZ police dude see's some Muslim he's been surveiling about to do some nasty business to some unsuspecting American citizens then he'd have his handy-dandy walkie talkie out calling in the proper authorities..

So, like I said, as much as you may not like it, Bloomberg was correct in his statement to the media. Now, go out and try and have ole Bloomy removed from office and see how far that get's ya. :)


Tim-
 
So, like I said, as much as you may not like it, Bloomberg was correct in his statement to the media. Now, go out and try and have ole Bloomy removed from office and see how far that get's ya. :)...

it would be more interesting if Bloomy is charged with a crime in NJ.
 
yes, there is a crime of "terrorism", in the NYS penal code.

dude, terrorists have been striking this city since the early 20th century.

Wall Street bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks, Thunder, Va does not have an anti terrorist law as far as I know or can find.

It does bring up an interesting point: If Arizona cannot make their own laws to stop illegal border invaders from coming into the state on the grounds that it is a federal function, why, then, does NYC have the right to have their own anti terrorist laws? Even in their own state, let alone elsewhere.
 
Thanks, Thunder, Va does not have an anti terrorist law as far as I know or can find.

It does bring up an interesting point: If Arizona cannot make their own laws to stop illegal border invaders from coming into the state on the grounds that it is a federal function, why, then, does NYC have the right to have their own anti terrorist laws? Even in their own state, let alone elsewhere.

well, terrorism is a crime that can be committed in any state. that's why without such laws, terrorism can be charged in the courts under murder, arson, assault, or other laws.

sure, a state can do that, if they wish. but honestly, your question is best for another thread.
 
The government has always infiltrated groups seen as potentially dangerous. I remember on person joking he suspected that there were more government agents in the KKK than KKK members.

Besides, it's Columbia U. I don't put any stock coming out of that source.
 
Last edited:
The government has always infiltrated groups seen as potentially dangerous. I remember on person joking he suspected that there were more government agents in the KKK than KKK members.

Besides, it's Columbia U. I don't put any stock coming out of that source.

the FBI's jurisdiction is the entire USA.

NYC's jurisdiction is NYC. If we are gonna allow local police to fight crime and do stings in other cities & states, we might as well just make all police Federal law enforcement.
 
what makes you think NYPD have the right to make an arrest outside of New York?

guess what....they don't.

when they leave New York State, they are regular citizens.....and have no right to carry their guns….

Yes, they do. All free Americans, including “regular citizens” have that right everywhere in America. That most levels of government currently refuse to fully obey the Constitution where it upholds that right does not change the fact that we do, in fact have it.
 
sure, if we see someone being mugged, killed, raped, or a house or car being robbed.

or a terrorist plot being hatched
 
why would charges based on evidence collected during illegal surveillance, get tossed out of court??

:lamo
what constitutes illegal surveillance? that they obtained all or a portion of it outside the boundary of NYC. foolish concept
try again
 
are you just asking silly questions?

its kinda looking that way.

keep trying to ask a question you might be able to answer. appears i was wrong

i'll try again; this time don't avoid the question by asking one of your own. explain why information obtained outside the boundaries of NYC would cause such evidence to be dismissed in court
 
keep trying to ask a question you might be able to answer. appears i was wrong

i'll try again; this time don't avoid the question by asking one of your own. explain why information obtained outside the boundaries of NYC would cause such evidence to be dismissed in court

sorry bud, but some things are self-explanatory.
 
sorry bud, but some things are self-explanatory.

so, you would want the information to be fund unacceptable but you have no basis to expect that result

got it
 

since you folded on that point, let me make another one

those covert agents who perform this surveillance do not require a search warrant if - due to their covert status - they are welcomed into the group they are monitoring
just as a DEA agent who is posing as a drug dealer does not require a search warrant to enter the home of an actual drug dealer who has invited him inside
 
Folded? Yeah right, he folded to your inability to answer a question.
glad you arrived to take his place
you tell us why evidence collected by the surveillance group would be excluded by the courts because it was collected outside the boundary of NYC
this should be rich
 
glad you arrived to take his place
you tell us why evidence collected by the surveillance group would be excluded by the courts because it was collected outside the boundary of NYC
this should be rich

I do not know what the laws are here but Bloomberg has absolutely no business tracking students in other states.
 
Back
Top Bottom