• 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!

Stop and Frisk practices

Should stopping and frisking be illegal?


  • Total voters
    22
I'm pretty sure it has to be exact. They can't state that they are going to search Main county. It has to be a specific site. Rt 33 1 mile before Rt 256.
That's what they are supposed to do here, but they went from doing the proper approximation of the street and block to saying "somewhere in the area" as in "well, we said it's gonna be somewhere in the parish between __p.m. and __a.m." no one is calling them on it. I'm actually tempted on a sober night to cause them pure hell and waste resources to make a point, it's gotten abusive.
 

If this is true, then it is illegal, since the officer would need more than "in a high crime area" alone to justify a stop and frisk. I'm sure there are some officers that make stuff up, which is wrong. And those incidents should be reported.

When Can the Police Stop and Frisk You on the Street? | LegalZoom

Not to mention, knowing whether the comment was actually made or not and is being reported exactly as intended from the person who made it.

Such practices are definitely questionable as to their legality, especially if not being done for legitimate reasons.

And, if the officer actually did handcuff the two mentioned in that story and ask them to dance to be let go, they should have reported him immediately, which was not mentioned if they did. And he should be reprimanded/punished/fired for such behavior.
 
Just so I'm clear, all cops are goons? Why don't you actually look at the positions I've posted in this thread and tell me what's so unreasonable about them? Is the fact that I believe law enforcement should actually have some tools to, y'know, enforce laws?
The big problem is that you are arguing for police actions that supercede their actual legal authority. No one has said the police don't have a right to investigate and enforce laws within the bounds of their authority to do so. What people are saying is that if a police officer is going to stop someone they should have grounds to do so and not circumstantial BS such as "implied consent" "walking in a bad area", or "driving on the road during peak drinking hours" all of those are lousy reasons to stop someone who are going about their business.
 
Isn't there some kind of ammendment about unfair search without probable cause?

I think it might have been the fourth.
 
Isn't there some kind of ammendment about unfair search without probable cause?

I think it might have been the fourth.
You are correct, it is the fourth. Improper search and seizure is banned.
 
random warrantless searches are by definition unconstitutional.
 
random warrantless searches are by definition unconstitutional.
Yet courts... even the Supreme Court... will sometimes allow them. Under the guise of "compelling interest". To me, "compelling interest" is essentially the court saying, "Yeah, we know it's wrong and/or unconstitutional, but we're going to allow it anyway. Get over it.".
 
Yet courts... even the Supreme Court... will sometimes allow them. Under the guise of "compelling interest". To me, "compelling interest" is essentially the court saying, "Yeah, we know it's wrong and/or unconstitutional, but we're going to allow it anyway. Get over it.".
The problem with compelling interest is that enforcement agencies are taking it too far. The limited scope was to be used for very rare situations that arose in which a warrant would take more time than was available to stop an in-progress attack, crime, conspiracy, etc. The big problem is now it's being used to say..."oh well, if it takes one ________off the street what's the big deal?" Well the big deal is that I don't have to prove my innocence in America, especially when I am walking down the street/driving, and minding my own business not committing crimes. We live in a "must prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt" legal society, this includes proper due process.
 
Back
Top Bottom