• 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!

Chicago "STOP AND FRISKS"

volsrock said:
The number of street stops by officers has plunged 80 percent this year and the numbers of murders have sky rocketed!

Also they are confiscating far fewer guns

Less "STOP AND FRISKS" = more murders and more guns on the streets!

FACT
Click to expand...

Yep. Obama's buddy has turned Chicago into the liberal dreamland to model the country after.
 
DVSentinel said:
I disagree. The idiot that made the error should be punished, not society. If a search, for example, is illegal or improper, the evidence should still be used but the one who did the unlawful search should face punishment.
Click to expand...

Bad idea. Here's the text of the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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
Click to expand...

So the 4th does NOT say it is illegal for the cops to search your home without a warrant. It says you have a right to be secure in your person, house, etc. against unreasonable searches. Him being punished, or not, has really NOTHING to do with whether your rights were violated. If the cop is executed on the spot, but the fruits of the illegal search are used against you, it's still a clear violation of your rights - from where you sit the 4th amendment has done NOTHING to protect you. So what if the cop is punished.

And it's shortsighted to say that 'society' is punished if the fruits of it aren't allowed in court. Society as we know it does not exist if the 4th isn't protected. Yes, some of us are "less safe" than a police state dictatorship as a result. That is the trade-off.
 
volsrock said:
Than u stop and frisk in those few terrible neighborhoods!
Click to expand...

Neighborhoods the cops label as "terrible" are no longer protected by the bill of rights? Where is that in the Constitution?

Or, if you mean stop and frisk based on some probably cause, fine.
 
The cops should just shoot every crook. It would save a whole lot of trouble and make everyone's life easier.
 
MaggieD said:
Yeah, I would, too. As long as Me and mine weren't the ones getting murdered.
Click to expand...

The Constitution provides for that also, it is in the 2nd A.
 
Renae said:
No, NY and Chicago have the exact same policy? As I read it the judge stopped the NEW YORK policy, not the Chicago. I get the concerns, blacks tend to get stopped more than others, and if you twist the law just enough, you can say it's unreasonable that a young black man dressed in the manner of a gang banger at midnight in a high crime area should be searched.

DARN. Stop doing that... crime goes up, murder goes up...

Was it really racial profiling or is the problem in black communities and the cultural rot that has so sadly infected far too many neighborhoods? Is it really unreasonable to search a gang banger for a gun, drugs or weapons? Or is it produent policing?

In a VACUUM, the ACLU has a point. Police operate in the real world.

Maybe you guys don't care about high crime rates and murders, it bothers the **** out of me.
Click to expand...

The ACLU doesn't have a point in a 'vacuum.' They have a point if they are protected rights and not merely guidelines that can be discarded when the cops at their sole discretion determine is most convenient for them.

And FWIW, I'm always a little amazed at how easy it is for people to give up OTHER people's rights if they believe it will make them safer. :roll:
 
Chomsky said:
Can't say I (fully) agree, but you make reasonable enough points that I can definitely see where you're coming from.

I just can't put aside the Constitution, or make exceptions.

But thanks for the reply, here.
Click to expand...

Sure you can Chomsky, but we'll save that for a later argument.
 
Personally I find it interesting that constitutional rights are the focal point in a discussion about a war zone.
For example in about 9 years of war in Iraq there were just under 5000 soldiers killed. In about 8 years there have been almost 4000 people murdered in Chicago, 75% black victims, and largely black on black.

Rights adhere to a civilized society. The cultural breakdown in parts of Chicago are testament to a degraded civilization.
Folks can cry about stop and frisk, but to protect the rights of the uncivilized society will lead to a military intervention that will respect a very minimal set of rights for these individuals.
It is inevitable if the social structure does not mend. One has simply to review historical government actions to see the writing on the wall.
It is so odd that the media and black culture bemoan the number killed by law enforcement and not those killed by their own due to societal dysfunction.

Black culture victimization leads to this culture. Liberals earnestly hoped to help this culture regain it's feet in society, but 100 years of their policies and practices have created a permanent victimization mentality that stifles individual progress.

When I see blacks raising the black power fist in the air as though in some kind of triumph I know that they have been duped.
 
_Sal said:
yeah I think that's what they have been trying to do and it isn't going over well when they misjudge :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

But they actually haven't been misjudging. Even in the Tulsa case the guy had drugs against the law. In other words, he was a crook too and so were 99.9% of all the other cases. Shoot em all so that only law abiding citizens are left. Then no one will be victimized anymore and police and courts would no longer be needed.
 
Moderate Right said:
But they actually haven't been misjudging. Even in the Tulsa case the guy had drugs against the law. In other words, he was a crook too and so were 99.9% of all the other cases. Shoot em all so that only law abiding citizens are left. Then no one will be victimized anymore and police and courts would no longer be needed.
Click to expand...

yes, riiiiiiiiiiiight

until they shoot one of your loved ones in error....

vigilante justice by police = a police state in very short order

no wonder all of you feel like you need to be carrying just to drive to the grocery store with the kids...;)
 
_Sal said:
yes, riiiiiiiiiiiight

until they shoot one of your loved ones in error....

vigilante justice by police = a police state in very short order

no wonder all of you feel like you need to be carrying just to drive to the grocery store with the kids...;)
Click to expand...

I don't even own a gun but I'm sick of all these thugs running around loose and being a burden on society. You can't even name more than one who was killed in error that wasn't breaking the law in one way or another. If one of my loved ones is a criminal then they deserve to be shot. Like I said, even in the recent Tulsa incident the guy was a druggie.
 
Moderate Right said:
I don't even own a gun but I'm sick of all these thugs running around loose and being a burden on society. You can't even name more than one who was killed in error that wasn't breaking the law in one way or another. If one of my loved ones is a criminal then they deserve to be shot. Like I said, even in the recent Tulsa incident the guy was a druggie.
Click to expand...

wow that is one very harsh sentence for some drug crime without any history or facts but hell who needs facts

conclusions based upon emotion and your feeling of the moment are likely good enough...

you are just full of light and life...execute everyone eh :lol:
 
_Sal said:
wow that is one very harsh sentence for some drug crime without any history or facts but hell who needs facts

conclusions based upon emotion and your feeling of the moment are likely good enough...

you are just full of light and life...execute everyone eh :lol:
Click to expand...

Yep. Execute all criminals. I'm tired of thugs and criminals running around loose. Seriously though, three or five strikes and you're in jail forever. No parole. It's crazy that we let criminals run around loose who have been arrested 10 - 20 times just to commit even more crimes. Then when they resist arrest and get shot by the police in the process we claim that these criminal's lives matter. They don't.
 
Moderate Right said:
Yep. Execute all criminals. I'm tired of thugs and criminals running around loose. Seriously though, three or five strikes and you're in jail forever. No parole. It's crazy that we let criminals run around loose who have been arrested 10 - 20 times just to commit even more crimes. Then when they resist arrest and get shot by the police in the process we claim that these criminal's lives matter. They don't.
Click to expand...

I agree. In fact, I'm all for harsh punishment. For example, I'd volunteer to light a stick of dynamite and shove it up the rear end of the NY/NJ terrorist.
 
volsrock said:
The number of street stops by officers has plunged 80 percent this year and the numbers of murders have sky rocketed!

Also they are confiscating far fewer guns

Less "STOP AND FRISKS" = more murders and more guns on the streets!

FACT
Click to expand...

Police state and total confiscation of weapons from citizens reduces murder.

Stop and frisk works but is not freedom liberty and independence.
 
Mathematician said:
I agree. In fact, I'm all for harsh punishment. For example, I'd volunteer to light a stick of dynamite and shove it up the rear end of the NY/NJ terrorist.
Click to expand...

Oh look, another libertarian who doesn't actually give two ****s about the constitution.
 
Moderate Right said:
But they actually haven't been misjudging. Even in the Tulsa case the guy had drugs against the law. In other words, he was a crook too and so were 99.9% of all the other cases. Shoot em all so that only law abiding citizens are left. Then no one will be victimized anymore and police and courts would no longer be needed.
Click to expand...

Just curious...you've never broken the law, any law? I imagine the number of people who have never broken any law approaches the number who have never lied, which would be zero.

And I guess we'll start shooting underage drinkers and anyone driving over the legal limit, since drug use against the law is an executable offense in this new police state world. Same with people caught texting while driving, etc....... Zero tolerance! And contrary to no police, we'll need millions of them to continue to kill all "law" breakers, except I imagine people like you who only break laws that don't deserve killing, unlike 'other' people - you know, the "thugs," who need killing.
 
JasperL said:
Just curious...you've never broken the law, any law? I imagine the number of people who have never broken any law approaches the number who have never lied, which would be zero.

And I guess we'll start shooting underage drinkers and anyone driving over the legal limit, since drug use against the law is an executable offense in this new police state world. Same with people caught texting while driving, etc....... Zero tolerance! And contrary to no police, we'll need millions of them to continue to kill all "law" breakers, except I imagine people like you who only break laws that don't deserve killing, unlike 'other' people - you know, the "thugs," who need killing.
Click to expand...

I was exaggerating to make a point as my later posts show. But, two points:

1. These people need respect for the law by following the verbal commands given by police and not resisting arrest. What in the hell do they expect to happen if they do not follow verbal commands or resist arrest? I mean really, what kind of outcome do they think will happen?

2. We as a society need to come up with a five strikes and you're out permanently law. Why on Earth are we willing to accept criminals being arrested 10, 20, and even more times and then being released to commit yet even more crimes? That's just insane.
 
Moderate Right said:
I was exaggerating to make a point as my later posts show. But, two points:

1. These people need respect for the law by following the verbal commands given by police and not resisting arrest. What in the hell do they expect to happen if they do not follow verbal commands or resist arrest? I mean really, what kind of outcome do they think will happen?
Click to expand...

I agree with the basic premise, but summary execution is probably not a reasonable expectation for disobeying an order. The only expectation I have is the police appropriately use deadly force, and the VAST majority of the time they do, but sometimes they do not.

2. We as a society need to come up with a five strikes and you're out permanently law. Why on Earth are we willing to accept criminals being arrested 10, 20, and even more times and then being released to commit yet even more crimes? That's just insane.
Click to expand...

Roughly half the country already has some version of that. I don't object as long as the crimes, especially the 'third strike' is a serious felony, and from what I can tell most only 'count' serious or violent felonies. I have a big problem with CA's old law, which allowed some petty crimes to count for that third strike, and don't think that non-violent drug offenses ought to count. But, yeah, in general serious criminals need to face escalating penalties, and I think do in every state. Your example said "arrested" which is meaningless so I assume you mean convicted 10-20 times which I don't think actually happens much if at all, and if they are convicted that many times, they're petty crimes, almost surely drug related, or the kind of thing where a single stop results in many secondary crimes added on for good measure.
 
volsrock said:
The number of street stops by officers has plunged 80 percent this year and the numbers of murders have sky rocketed!

Also they are confiscating far fewer guns

Less "STOP AND FRISKS" = more murders and more guns on the streets!

FACT
Click to expand...

Stop and Frisk is unconstitutional. Why do you conservatives hate the Constitution?
 
Geoist said:
So do you want to remove the 2nd Amendment along with the 4th?
Click to expand...

Seeing as how "has a gun" is worthy of summary execution these days, I'm guessing that yes, this is what the conservatives want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom