• 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!

Trump proposes Nationwide Stop & Frisk

Patrickt said:
I love it when people argue about something they haven't defined.

"A brief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspect. The Fourth Amendment requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before stopping a suspect. If the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a frisk, a quick pat-down of the person’s outer clothing. See Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, (1967). "
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stop_and_frisk

Now, what is you're problem with this Supreme Court decision and why do you think the Supreme Court is violating the 4th Amendment in this decision?
Click to expand...


You obviously don't understand "Stop and Frisk". The concept of "Stop and Frisk" is to do AWAY with Terry v. Ohio...and allow police to stop and frisk anyone even without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed. You might want to pay more attention.
 
disneydude said:
You obviously don't understand "Stop and Frisk". The concept of "Stop and Frisk" is to do AWAY with Terry v. Ohio...and allow police to stop and frisk anyone even without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed. You might want to pay more attention.
Click to expand...

Really? If you are through condescending, please explain to us lesser lights why, when the Supreme Court long since has established and defined the reasonable suspicion standard for investigatory detentions by police, municipal governments would do something so idiotic as to adopt policies expressly designed to ignore that standard. Next you'll be telling us the city officials never realized their police officers had to consider the citizens' constitutional rights.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
Really? If you are through condescending, please explain to us lesser lights why, when the Supreme Court long since has established and defined the reasonable suspicion standard for investigatory detentions by police, municipal governments would do something so idiotic as to adopt policies expressly designed to ignore that standard.
Click to expand...

I don't think they would. Especially since the Supreme Court has ruled that if it doesn't comply with Terry, its unconstitutional. New York tried to do it and the Supreme Court shut them down. Trump is obviously too stupid to realize this.
 
disneydude said:
I don't think they would. Especially since the Supreme Court has ruled that if it doesn't comply with Terry, its unconstitutional. New York tried to do it and the Supreme Court shut them down. Trump is obviously too stupid to realize this.
Click to expand...

You claimed in #202 that the "concept of 'Stop and Frisk' is to do AWAY with Terry v. Ohio...and allow police to stop and frisk anyone even without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed." You are just re-defining the expression "stop-and-frisk" to imply that procedure is normally and purposely carried out without reasonable suspicion. And yet the Court made clear in Terry that what is usually called the "stop-and-frisk" procedure, provided it was based on reasonable suspicion, did not necessarily violate a person's Fourth Amendment right:


The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.

The scope of the search in this case presents no serious problem in light of these standards. Officer McFadden patted down the outer clothing of petitioner and his two companions. He did not place his hands in their pockets or under the outer surface of their garments until he had felt weapons, and then he merely reached for and removed the guns. He never did invade Katz' person beyond the outer surfaces of his clothes, since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon.



Police may also make investigatory detentions, given reasonable suspicion a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, without frisking the person detained for weapons. The Court's decisions on this subject make clear that if the suspicion is reasonable, based on the totality of the circumstances, police may temporarily detain a person to ask him who he is and what he is doing. And if, during the temporary detention, the person reacts in ways that create probable cause, police may then arrest him.

I don't see anything in Mr. Trump's comments that implies he wants police to conduct investigatory detentions without reasonable suspicion. Maybe he just doesn't agree with the federal court that New York's policy was unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
You claimed in #202 that the "concept of 'Stop and Frisk' is to do AWAY with Terry v. Ohio...and allow police to stop and frisk anyone even without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed." You are just re-defining the expression "stop-and-frisk" to imply that procedure is normally and purposely carried out without reasonable suspicion. And yet the Court made clear in Terry that what is usually called the "stop-and-frisk" procedure, provided it was based on reasonable suspicion, did not necessarily violate a person's Fourth Amendment right:


The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.

The scope of the search in this case presents no serious problem in light of these standards. Officer McFadden patted down the outer clothing of petitioner and his two companions. He did not place his hands in their pockets or under the outer surface of their garments until he had felt weapons, and then he merely reached for and removed the guns. He never did invade Katz' person beyond the outer surfaces of his clothes, since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon.



Police may also make investigatory detentions, given reasonable suspicion a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, without frisking the person detained for weapons. The Court's decisions on this subject make clear that if the suspicion is reasonable, based on the totality of the circumstances, police may temporarily detain a person to ask him who he is and what he is doing. And if, during the temporary detention, the person reacts in ways that create probable cause, police may then arrest him.

I don't see anything in Mr. Trump's comments that implies he wants police to conduct investigatory detentions without reasonable suspicion. Maybe he just doesn't agree with the federal court that New York's policy was unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


Dude. You don't know what you are talking about. Yes. Terry is the law of the land. Yes, everything you just said is accurate. What Trump is talking about is something completely different. He is talking about the "Stop and Frisk" that New York had which the Supreme Court struck down.
 
matchlight said:
You claimed in #202 that the "concept of 'Stop and Frisk' is to do AWAY with Terry v. Ohio...and allow police to stop and frisk anyone even without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed." You are just re-defining the expression "stop-and-frisk" to imply that procedure is normally and purposely carried out without reasonable suspicion.
Click to expand...
While I can only speak for myself:

I don't think yoopsu understand his point. Terry established the "reasonable suspicion" standard. Stop & Frisk -- the city-wide policy as a whole, NOT your typical Terry stop -- violates the standard. It promoted vague and overly broad justifications for reasonable suspicion (e.g. "furtive movement" or "suspicious bulge"), it produced almost no contraband, it produced almost no arrests, the criteria was racist, officers were pushed to meet quotas rather than apply valid standards, etc etc

Again, nothing about the District Court ruling in any way tries or wants to reject Terry. What it does is declare that far too many searches initiated under the NYPD S&F policy violated Terry.


I don't see anything in Mr. Trump's comments that implies he wants police to conduct investigatory detentions without reasonable suspicion. Maybe he just doesn't agree with the federal court that New York's policy was unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
The latter seems highly unlikely. Since he hasn't bothered to defend the policy yet, and said nothing about the ruling for days, it seems more likely he didn't know it was declared unconstitutional. Or, he doesn't care.

However, ignorance to the point of incompetence is no excuse. He is not a talking head anymore on Fox News, who can spout off about policies with no consequences. He's running for President, and he should at least have a passing familiarity with a policy before declaring that it would fix a crime issue in a major American city that -- wait for it -- ran its own Stop & Frisk policies, which were abandoned in part because it did not reduce crime.
 
disneydude said:
I don't think they would. Especially since the Supreme Court has ruled that if it doesn't comply with Terry, its unconstitutional. New York tried to do it and the Supreme Court shut them down. Trump is obviously too stupid to realize this.
Click to expand...

Well Trump also said that if he ordered the military to do something against treaties we signed or unconstitutional (I don't remember his exact statement) that they would absolutely do what he commanded them to do, so the guy is a bit delusional to say the least,
 
disneydude said:
Dude. You don't know what you are talking about. Yes. Terry is the law of the land. Yes, everything you just said is accurate. What Trump is talking about is something completely different. He is talking about the "Stop and Frisk" that New York had which the Supreme Court struck down.
Click to expand...

By "Supreme Court," do you mean the Supreme Court of the U.S.? If so, please cite the decision in which it held New York's procedure unconstitutional. If you are talking about the Supreme Court of New York, that is not the highest court in that state. Maybe Mr. Trump just doesn't agree with the court.
 
matchlight said:
By "Supreme Court," do you mean the Supreme Court of the U.S.? If so, please cite the decision in which it held New York's procedure unconstitutional. If you are talking about the Supreme Court of New York, that is not the highest court in that state. Maybe Mr. Trump just doesn't agree with the court.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be surprising if Trump doesn't agree, but it is also unlikely the US SC would overrule the State SC.
 
blaxshep said:
It wouldn't be surprising if Trump doesn't agree, but it is also unlikely the US SC would overrule the State SC.
Click to expand...

Apparently this was a decision by a federal district court. I don't much care about the details of New York's policy, or whether it worked there. I favor investigative detentions in general as a method police may use to fight crime, and despite the hysterical reactions, I think Mr. Trump was only saying something similar. If those detentions are properly carried out, they can make it harder for criminals to operate.

More than a few collectivists probably dislike this method because they don't much like police and are primed to rush to the defense of thugs. Their attempts to make a martyr of the boxer and callous murderer Ruben "Hurricane" Carter ("a man the authorities sought to blame, for somethin' that he never done . . .") is only one of a number of examples of this that could be offered. Other examples can be seen on forums like these, where they can hardly wait to side with people who riot against police.

There is another example, in a context that did not involve urban minority groups, of how deep this collectivist sympathy for vicious criminals sometimes runs. Lynne Stewart, a lawyer and longtime anti-American commie, went so far as to try to help the murdering jihadist rat she was defending send coded messages for terrorist attacks, which he transmitted to her during her visits to his cell, to other jihadists overseas. She was convicted and sent to prison for that. No pop songs or movies glorifying her yet, though, as far as I know.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who could possibly object to "Stop & Frisk", is obviously someone with something to hide.
If you live on the wrong side of the law, I wish only the worst for you, but wish only the best for our law-abiding citizens.
To be sure, our country has experienced rapid erosion under the Obama/Hillary administration, but law-abiding citizens still handily outnumber the creeps.
In short, Donald is going to mop the floor with Hillary ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom