Here is the gist of it in a statement provided by the judge:
"Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime — preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example,” she wrote, “but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective.”
So much for the idea of roving jackbooted thugs free to shake down anyone they want without being held accountable.
I love the courts, with them I will see the rightwinger's ediface disassembled one plank at a time
Again, with the conservatives all too often, some people are more equal than others Do any of your remember 'Animal Farm', by George Orwell?
Here is another one to chew on 'the end does not always justify the means'
So the police need to unlazy themselves and take the effort to do good police work, respecting that the 4th and 14th amendments applies even to Blacks and Hispanics!
This is a great day, and I have had my say, enjoy your Monday folks
So you don't think stop and frisk is a viable tool for the police to use then?
No, of course not. We have to let the suspected criminal hurt someone (and be able to prove it) before we can take any action at all, even talking to them.
For instance, seeing 10 people gathered on a street corner known for being used by illegals in their job search, all in one beat up pickup truck and all wearing multiple layers of clothing in 100 degree heat (from the AZ training manual on finding illegals) does not mean we can ask for citizenship ID. At least not according to liberal courts, which shut down the AZ law as being racist even though NONE of the training procedures or the law had anything to do with racism.
Does the phrase "... or the right of people to peaceably assemble ..." have any meaning to you, or should that have been left out of the 1st Amendment. And if you say, "well, you have to check to see if they are citizens to which the 1st amendment applies" then my response is "in that case, they better be checking the ID's of the 10 Canadians standing peaceably together ..." I don't think you understand the purpose behind the 1st Amendment; it was to prevent people like the British from disbanding people like the peaceable colonialists who were peaceably gathered together.
And yes, that is one of the drawbacks of a "Free" society, that the bad guys often get to act first; otherwise, the logical conclusion from your logic is to imprison the whole population just in case they might commit a crime.
And they would not be dispersed (if legal citizens). So what's the problem?
A resident of America is a free individual. Without reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, the sovereign individual is the highest authority in the nation.
When did this change?
It hasn't or it shouldn't have changed.
We are on the same page, OK
Yes, we are ALL on the same page. The only question is "what is reasonable suspicion"? That and trusting our cops to behave themselves, and we all know that isn't going to happen with every cop or in every situation.
'Yes, we are ALL on the same page. The only question is "what is reasonable suspicion"? That and trusting our cops to behave themselves, and we all know that isn't going to happen with every cop or in every situation.'
Ok, Wilderness, that is a good question, but one certain answer cannot be merely the fact that you are black, male and walking around in a hoodie on your way to the local convenience store. People, particularly cops will have to work harder to be objective leaving their preconceived biases in the locker with their street clothes when they put on the uniform. It requires a higher standard of civility which is going to be necessary to maintain the peace.
Still going back to Zimmerman, are you? OK - to that black male in a hoodie, add a stranger strolling across private property checking out houses and delete the part about coming from a convenience store as there was no indication of that until after the incident. You can delete the "black" part, too, as there is no indication that color ever played a part except in the minds of second-guessers. Then add in that he is carrying something, and in a neighborhood suffering from a rash of vandalism and break-ins. And if you still aren't suspicious of that stranger, you need to rethink your own objectivity and your ability to honestly look for truth.
Yes, cops need to work hard at leaving behind their preconceived biases, (and for the most part they do so) but so do others that start with a bias and conveniently disregard very pertinent information to maintain those biases.
Civility, yes. Civility in not making an automatic assumption that every cop is a racist, out to get blacks, hispanics, or any other race not their own. It means people need to respond to police requests with civility and respect, not ignore them or behave in a way to intentionally cause suspicion in order to scream "RACIST COP". Funny how that part gets left out, isn't it?
Was he (Martin) really checking out houses? I think that we agree to disagree on the zimmerman incident and need not dredge that up, outside of an example I give to promote a point of view.
It all depends on what is 'very pertinent information'. The four men filing suit against the City of New York and the judge that ultimately made a ruling to their benefit are asking these kinds of questions as well. It is acceptable to sift a kilogram of wheat to find a instance or two of chaff. It works fine for wheat but not for people.
I did not say that every cop is a racist, but I regard it as a racist policy that the cops are out to enforce, applying a standard of stop and frisk that does not apply to other communities in the city. There has been traditional friction between cops and residents of minority neighborhoods, I or anybody else is going ask questions as to why you are stopping me and what is it that I am the focus of your attention? Does the random identification and frisk count as an unreasonable search? I think it does and so does the judge. Most of the time people should respond to the requests of law enforcement with due respect, unless unwarranted or unreasonable. Could someone have the courtesy to tell me why I am being stopped and frisked? I insist that police have a warrant prior to searching my property, am I going to allow them to grope with any less?
You keep missing the point, @wilderness, in America, you are presumed innocent, in America there is no requirement to prove anything period, if you are just standing around; our founding fathers tried to make that abundantly clear.
They did not want authorities walking up willy-nilly asking for proof of this or that without probable cause that a crime is being, or is about to be committed. Can they keep an eye on these people if they are in a known pick-up zone? Of course they can, but they can't harass them, it is against everything America is supposed to stand for.
Tell that to the Secret Service as they watch you load a rifle and sight it at the President. After all, you haven't done anything yet!
You're right - they should not harass, but what is harass? To ask a person to prove they have a right to be in the country when there is a reasonable suspicion they do not? Or to ask the same person day after day? Or to ask anyone with brown skin to prove it, using the color of their skin as an excuse for "reasonable suspicion"?
I submit the first is OK, the other two are not.
Your example is ridiculous, as you are well aware, what they are watching is a crime, in and of itself. Why don't you try seeing a white man walking into a bank with a gun in plain sight, but wait, that doesn't work either. Given that it is a white man, they might not do anything, but any other color they certainly would because that is probable cause that a crime is in the process.
Now let's turn to a white man standing on a street in Arizona with a gun in plain sight in his holster. In this case, no action by the police is allowed because in AZ, that is perfectly legal. It would be either if it were a black man with the gun, but you can bet your bottom dollar he will be interviewed by the cops.
"We have to let the suspected criminal hurt someone (and be able to prove it) before we can take any action at all, even talking to them."
Wilderness, if there is neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion, what is the basis of 'suspecting' someone? This is much about the kinds of things that had us at odds in the Trayvon Martin shooting case. It may now easier to see why so many are touchy about this.
Your very question is free of sense. To paraphrase: If there is no reasonable suspicion what is the basis of suspicion?". Very, very obviously, none. By definition, none. From the very question, none - it is like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife".
But that question has zero to do with the scenario I listed: finding a group of men in circumstances that almost guarantees they are illegal aliens. The excuses of "profiling" (almost definition of police work) and "racism" (very carefully eliminated from both law and training) were used to invalidate the law. The basis in this example was exactly what I said was to be found; 3 different indications that the people might be illegals.
Now, you can claim that is not reason for suspicion, just as you did in the Zimmerman matter, but the claim is nonsense. You aren't looking for "suspicion", you are looking for proof - proof that is ONLY available after a crime has been committed. Personally I would rather submit to minor questions and requirements than to criminal activity and have no reason to deny police the right to question (or in this case, ask for ID) rather than wait for someone to be hurt.
Proof is what is required to punish, suspicion is what is needed to check things out.
Reaonable suspicion is justified under the law to allow police to stop and question. I don't know about your scenario in Arizona, but what about New York? Is it ok collect all black and hispanic men from the street, search them and let them go if they are determined not considered a suspect? It does not work that way. Stop and Frisk means that the law is looking for anyone black or brown as automatically the basis of reasonable suspicion. Is he wearing a hoodie, does he scowl at the officer when he passes by? But how would you know or be sensitive to that living in Idaho? So where do you stand on that.
Many of the ethnic persuasion have a touchy relationship with law enforcement because of past infractions and perceptions. Of course, you being Anglo, you get to deal with Barney Fife and Sheriff Taylor, our meeting with law enforcement at any level has not been so cordial. I and many like me are going to take these stops in a different spirit than you would.
The question remains what that suspicion in based upon, Arizona is not to be enforcing immigration laws, but has to be able to support the possibility of some other crime that is being committed. Arizona law enforcement should call INS, otherwise, without harassing the group.
I don't know much about the New York law - all that I know came from the OP with it's inflammatory and silly language (roving, jackbooted thugs). Not much in other words.
I very much doubt, however, that cops were instructed (or even given approval) to stop anyone with dark skin. And I don't believe for even one moment that there has been a law passed with that instruction or approval since the civil war period.
On the other hand, cops stopping only blacks in a neighborhood where only blacks live IS quite reasonable despite the inevitable claims of racism.
Arizona law enforcement should call INS - why? Why call INS when they won't even accept illegal aliens when presented with one in handcuffs? INS will NOT enforce the laws, so calling them is a waste of time. But that's another topic for another day. A day that will never come as our esteemed leaders have decided that anyone that can sneak into the country shall become a citizen.
'I don't know much about the New York law - all that I know came from the OP with it's inflammatory and silly language (roving, jackbooted thugs). Not much in other words."
Well, Wilderness, you could benefit by more empathy. My description while inappropriate for you is quite descriptive when you are a black male, never knowing when and why you are going to be stopped and for what reason or result. There is no reasonable suspicion except the fact that you are a young black male at the wrong place at the wrong time, much like Trayvon Martin. As you have alluded to once before, our realities are far apart, and while you could never wear the shoes of those afflicted, you might try to consider that they may see things just a bit differently.
'I very much doubt, however, that cops were instructed (or even given approval) to stop anyone with dark skin. And I don't believe for even one moment that there has been a law passed with that instruction or approval since the civil war period."
You and I both know that they are not instructed, but they can and do abuse the lattitude allowed for discretion when on the job. Ther e is dejure and defacto, and we are talking about what actually happens, who says that there has to be documentation?
But would whites tolerate indiscriminant accosting by police in their communities? That's the question. I recall the bellyaching by conservatives regarding TSA airport security personnel. They always said that regardless of threats posed by terrorists, that searches were draconian and that they should be beyond suspicion. Instead, they should be checking the guy with the turban on his head. It is more than a mere incovenience, it is an imposition and no one likes it when it applies to them.
If Arizona wants to avoid lawsuits resulting from accostings and arrests without probable cause, maybe it needs to stick to concepts of federalism and let the areas of jurisdiction that belong to the Federal Goverment stay with them. I know how controversial this has been and I have a opinion in regards to this issue, as obviously, you do as well.
So you are trying to evoke empathy with terms like "jackboots" (a direct reference to Nazism, I assume)? Sorry, it doesn't work with me - it just screams that you have nothing but that to work with. No facts, no truth, just twisted lies designed to arouse sympathy. Given that that is the method to be used, it does the opposite with me.
You may even consider that description appropriate if you are a black male, but if so you do black males a great disservice. They aren't that stupid - to actually believe that NYC police in general wear jackboots. Instead, it is an inflammatory, defamatory description designed and effective in raising anger. No doubt useful in riots, not so much in behaving civilly when confronted by police. One might even think, in fact, that such a description will encourage a suspect to behave badly, resulting in negative responses from police and more ammunition for future emotional arguments if the behavior can be set aside and only police response examined.
"Stop and Frisk means that the law is looking for anyone black or brown as automatically the basis of reasonable suspicion." Obviously false, as you say in the next post: "You and I both know that they are not instructed..." which means the law is NOT simply looking for anyone black. So why did you tell that whopper two posts ago? To raise sympathy with a lie of exaggeration? Again, doesn't work for me.
I understand, I think, your definition of "reasonable suspicion" and, when applied to anyone black, it amounts to absolute proof, preferably with video and audio recording. That doesn't work for me, either - I DO understand what the term actually means even if you don't. If you would like to discuss what "reasonable suspicion" might mean, with examples, I'm up for it...but ONLY if you will agree to leave racism at home and quite trying to treat different races differently. We can start with what made Zimmerman suspicious of Martin and discuss if that suspicion was justified.
Lastly, if the federal govt. would perform it's constitutionally mandated duties the Arizona law would never have happened. As it does not, that state felt impelled to take those duties on itself, at it's own cost, and do exactly what federal law requires of federal law enforcement. And they were, IMO, 100% right in doing so; there is a huge crime problem in that state because our politicians refuse to perform their duties and that crime very definitely harms people in Arizona. They have a right to defend their lives and property when the feds illegally refuse to do so.
'So you are trying to evoke empathy with terms like "jackboots" (a direct reference to Nazism, I assume)? Sorry, it doesn't work with me - it just screams that you have nothing but that to work with. No facts, no truth, just twisted lies designed to arouse sympathy. Given that that is the method to be used, it does the opposite with me.'
I know it does not work for you, but it works for many of us.
What visions come to mind when law enforcement can stop you at anytime for any reason and ask for your identification and search you? Such are the trappings of a 'police state', which was firmly put down in the judge's ruling. Certainly, I do not intend to put a burr under your saddle over all this.
'You may even consider that description appropriate if you are a black male, but if so you do black males a great disservice. They aren't that stupid - to actually believe that NYC police in general wear jackboots.'
We all know that New York's finest are not wearing jackboots, the point is that the policy and the latitude and discretion given officers carrying it out smells much like it. Did not intend to upset you, what are you angry about? What do you have in common with a New York borough? My opinion is just that, obviously shared by judicial authority. Citizens have an obligation to cooperate with law enforcement, I don't deny that, but that does not include violations of my person. You are overreacting... The court and ruling judge did not find the issue so much of an emotional argument, on the contrary, they found the case quite substantive.
"Stop and Frisk means that the law is looking for anyone black or brown as automatically the basis of reasonable suspicion."
You miss my point, why are these people being stopped? Why did the 4 men felt the need to file a suit against the city?Would people be randomly stopped in a similar fashion in other parts of town? You misinterpret what I say and it obvious that you are hot under the collar.
Fine, tell me what is your interpretation of what constitutes 'reasonable suspicion' and lets look at an example 'Stop and Frisk"in New York City. So, why don't you educate me? The problem is that the men being stopped and search have not done anything to merit the police attention. That is a non=starter for me, even if you are willing to live with that.
Ok, we agree to disagree with how immigration issues are handled in Arizona, save that battle for another day.
No, not hot under the collar, just irritated at an obvious attempt to raise emotions without providing any factual information. It is, and always will be, a losing game with anyone that actually cares about truth.
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyreg … l&_r=0
I find two things that seem to contradict each other (but nothing on a case filed by four men). First, the court complains that there are more stops in minority communities. Communities where there are more police (and if there aren't, the people complain about that) and more crime. It is inevitable there will be more stops, and it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with increased crime and increased police patrols. That the judge declares it racially biased is stupid.
The judge also says that far too many stops are being made with little to no "reasonable suspicion". The article gives few examples, but I have little doubt the judge is correct, and this is indeed a major problem.
Next we go back to some ignorant union organizer who complains that it is "racial profiling" to stop predominately black people in a predominately black neighborhood. Madness! Of course there will be mostly black people frisked in a mostly black neighborhood! What else could possibly be expected?
So. The "stop and frisk" probably needed stopped, but not because black people are being stopped in black, crime ridden neighborhoods. It needs stopped because it is being abused; the requirements for stopping are not being met.
"The judge found that the New York police were too quick to deem suspicious behavior that was perfectly innocent, in effect watering down the legal standard required for a stop. " Although wrong (and needing stopped), it should not be surprising to find cops doing it in high crime areas.
As far as "reasonable suspicion", I listed a series of reasons I consider adequate for suspicion by Zimmerman. Do you agree that a young male, a stranger that likely has no permission to be present, wandering private property on a rainy night and casing the homes he passes in a neighborhood suffering vandalism and break-ins should be considered suspicious? Please note that I left out the "black" part - if you wish, consider this young male to be white. Or red or brown or yellow. It makes absolutely no difference, as far as I can see, in whether those facts constituted "reasonable suspicion".
'No, not hot under the collar, just irritated at an obvious attempt to raise emotions without providing any factual information. It is, and always will be, a losing game with anyone that actually cares about truth.'
Of course, I care about the truth.....
'I find two things that seem to contradict each other (but nothing on a case filed by four men). First, the court complains that there are more stops in minority communities. Communities where there are more police (and if there aren't, the people complain about that) and more crime. It is inevitable there will be more stops, and it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with increased crime and increased police patrols. That the judge declares it racially biased is stupid.'
It is justified to have more police in troubled areas and of course there are going to be more stops, simply based on statistics. I have no objection to that, it is the reason for stops or lack thereof that I am concerned about. Now you are beginning to GET IT with this statement you made below. It is not only a major problem, it is THE problem and was really the nature of the case I was making to you.
"The judge also says that far too many stops are being made with little to no "reasonable suspicion". The article gives few examples, but I have little doubt the judge is correct, and this is indeed a major problem."
'Next we go back to some ignorant union organizer who complains that it is "racial profiling" to stop predominately black people in a predominately black neighborhood. Madness! Of course there will be mostly black people frisked in a mostly black neighborhood! What else could possibly be expected?'
I agree with what you said here, in a black and hispanic community of course the only ones likely to be stopped are blacks and hispanics, no brainer here. I take no issue with you regarding this. Again what you wrote below is the point of this discussion and what I was trying to get across to you
"So. The "stop and frisk" probably needed stopped, but not because black people are being stopped in black, crime ridden neighborhoods. It needs stopped because it is being abused; the requirements for stopping are not being met."
"The judge found that the New York police were too quick to deem suspicious behavior that was perfectly innocent, in effect watering down the legal standard required for a stop. " Although wrong (and needing stopped), it should not be surprising to find cops doing it in high crime areas."
My point exactly! That is why the progressive community have come together to support this decision.
"As far as "reasonable suspicion", I listed a series of reasons I consider adequate for suspicion by Zimmerman. Do you agree that a young male, a stranger that likely has no permission to be present, wandering private property on a rainy night and casing the homes he passes in a neighborhood suffering vandalism and break-ins should be considered suspicious? Please note that I left out the "black" part - if you wish, consider this young male to be white. Or red or brown or yellow. It makes absolutely no difference, as far as I can see, in whether those facts constituted "reasonable suspicion".
Yeah, I would agree with you that if the boy were casing out homes, and trespassing, rather than just going home from the convenience store, it would support my being suspicious. I probably would have called the police, but I certainly would not have confronted him, armed or not.
Wilderness, your example is difficult to dispute because on its face - your scenario cries out for investigation. It reeks of reasonable suspicion.
But, stepping down a notch or two, as the law was being used, all it took was for a policeman to think that you didn't look like an upright citizen, or even, at its meanest level, for a policeman to be concerned that he hadn't documented enough stop and frisks for his shift... and Bingo! Joe Citizen gets confronted on his way to the store, just because the cop "needed one more.".
Do you think that's a fair scenario? Do you think stop and frisk is justified in that case?
Or is that one of the little liberties you are willing to give away for a little more security?
To be fair, it appears the NYPD can document the positive results of Stop and Frisk. And I can envision a lot of similar scenarios in crime ridden neighborhoods that would make stop and frisk an apparently reasonable action, but... as Cred said, it's still an example where the ends cannot justify the means.
No, it certainly isn't fair and should never be tolerated. But while such a scenario WILL happen in rare cases no matter how hard we try to avoid it, that is no reason to require police to drop the extremely useful tool of profiling.
Not profiling, mind you, based on race but on such things as the Arizona law used. Stop and Frisk is useful, as you point out, but must be as tightly controlled as the use of excessive force is, if not even more. We give our cops guns, tazers, high speed cars and all sorts of other tools that require careful use and monitoring of that use. Stop and Frisk is no different.
Another example proving the concept behind Baskin-Robbins - Chocolate for me, Rocky Road for you.
By the way, when I spoke of a " fair scenario" I meant as a realistic example, not fair, as in a measure of treatment. My momma made sure I knew life didn't have to be fair.
The police have always had the authority to stop and question. And giving them the same credit for diligence and integrity that you do - resulting increased suspicion does allow for a frisk. Without the need for an expanded mandate such as NY's law. Sorta like DUI guidelines. Questions are asked and the situation is evaluated - before - sobriety tests are administered.
I think the court got it right, but that's just my perspective.
As a side note; there have been more than the "rare" number of ordinary law-abiding citizens being subjected to the public stop and frisk humiliation in NY.
Truthfully, I'm of two minds here as I've seen pat downs go wrong. My son, when he first got his drivers license, was very often stopped for anything under the sun. A dirty license plate in one instance.
He was searched (pat down + search the car) each time; a pat down is legal during a traffic stop, but ONLY to find weapons. Over and over, cigarettes were taken from him (he never learned to hide them) and he was charged with possession of tobacco by a minor. He did hundreds of hours of community service.
Now, the cop was required by law to ignore that pack of cigarette in the shirt pocket, but didn't. Unfortunately, a claim had to be filed with a few days to suppress that illegally obtained evidence and we didn't know that, so the boy paid for the illegal actions of the cop. Not only profiling in the worst way (they parked at the high school at end of school day, stopping young drivers indiscriminately until the parking lot was empty) but going further with illegal searches and confiscation coupled with charges that never should have been filed.
So I do understand the problems and understand that not all cops are honest. I still support the idea of profiling and, given reasonable suspicion, pat downs.
The question is not whether it is viable or effective, but whether it is legal or constitutional.
Here in the UK it is legal but it doesn't stop the human rights crew from bemoaning it.
It was legal in the Colonies when there wasn't an America to great effect to thwart the resistance, that is why it is illegal in America today.
Lets face it we are not talking about the time when the settlers were talking treason, we are talking about a modern America where there is problems with crime and illegal immigrants, same as the UK, where we have a right to gather for protest but there must be constraints.
Too many people are afraid of upsetting the criminals, the illegal immigrants and the liberals, yet for a safe and secure society someone will always have to be upset.
If you take away the tools that keep society safe ( even if they have faults) then you will have anarchy, would you take all the constraints away from your entry into the country requirements because someone might be offended?
Stopping someone in the street and asking them to prove their identity is nothing more than bolstering the security of the community, if the same police officer stops the same person over and over again then they have cause for concern. If different police officer keep stopping the same person then maybe that person should ask themselves what am i doing wrong!
So the same question arises in my mind each time people complain about searches, if you have nothing to hide why should it bother you, if you are unduly targeted again and again, ask yourself why and if you can't find a reason then complain to the relevant authorities.
I have a hard time believing anybody but an idiot is bothered by upsetting a criminal, no, instead, what they are bothered by is the slippery slope to a jack-boot society.
There are some in America who wouldn't mind that because it would lead to "law and order" and a so-called "stable" society. Well, that is what the Soviet Union had for decades, isn't it.
I live in the UK and I can tell you there are loads of liberal thinkers who are all over you like a rash if you upset criminals.
I doubt if you give police the tools to do their job (that is primarily to protect the public) that it would lead to a jackboot society, not giving them the tools to do their job puts society in much more danger.
Stop and search has nothing to do with control and everything to do with prevention.
Look at what happened in education. The tools to maintain discipline have been systematically taken away from educators. Does anybody feel that classroom discipline has increased as these tools have decreased? Just let us do our job, or if you're going to micromanage us and tie our hands, expect lesser results.
I have to agree with you on this side of the issue, Education, because minors, for good reason, aren't accorded the same Constitutional guarantees as emancipated adults. I actually still believe in witnessed, videotaped corporal punishment for children, but not teenagers. However, such things as bouncing a student off of a locker room bench goes a bit too far as one substitute teacher did to me in 7th or 8th grade; he thought I was stealing something out of MY locker and acted, then asked questions.
EA, you could do an entire hub on the negative effects of progress over the last 50 years. I remember when the "board of education" was a wooden paddle. The problem is that Pandora's Box has already been opened, and the relative innocence of an earlier period is gone for ever. We all have become too 'smart' for our own britches.
Too many people are afraid of upsetting the criminals, the illegal immigrants and the liberals, yet for a safe and secure society someone will always have to be upset.
But to have a certain level of gun control, who is upset then? The question is can the pain of invasion be spread among all?
Not in most situations, they need probable cause to frisk somebody or search their vehicle. In today's society, however, that means they can damn near frisk anybody for any made up reason for who is going to challenge a cop?
Now, I do understand the need to be very careful, too many police men and women have been hurt or killed by people with hidden weapons, so it is a very fine line between the liberty Conservatives cry about losing so often and protecting those whose job it is to protect us but sometimes abuse their power ... it is a very complicated world out there and some people think there are black and white answers to it; well there aren't.
But I would still rather have a check done then not done.
I personally would have no objection to a search, frisk or questions, why should I?
There is a real danger of IEDs. Inserted Explosive devices, which may be placed in multiple body orifices. To keep us safe, the government should record all activity in which an individual may have an opportunity to insert an explosive device, showers, bedrooms, bathrooms, etc....
You want to be safe, don't ya?
By all means, Speeder, it is something like that!
Credence, I copied an article from the Daily Kos that appeared on my Facebook account; it feeds right into what you are implying. It was so poignant, I wanted to write a hub about it.
Greetings My Esoteric, I have to keep on the lookout for the article that you plan to right on so important a topic.
I just wished that the conservatives were just half as zealous in protecting the rest of the Constitution as they are the Second Amendment.
Credence, you probably already know that by definition a Conservative is someone who believes some groups are more equal that others, that is one of the characteristics of being conservative, even today. (Socialists also believe in the rights of groups, rather than the rights of individuals, btw, that is why Obama, et al aren't Socialists)
Consequently, that also means not all Right-wingers are Conservatives, for I suspect many who consider themselves on the Right also consider themselves "for the individual" over the group. That, to their chagrin, makes them a Liberal, again by today's definition, albeit they will classified as a "minimal state liberal", meaning Government, keep the hell out of my business.
You and I are considered "active state liberals" in that we think government needs to be involved to keep the playing field level for all individuals "so that all have an equal chance to rise to the level their abilities and will-power take them". (Most Right-wingers ignore the last part of what active state liberals think and stop at the word "individuals".
ME, neither you nor I are wide eyed leftist bomb throwing radicals.
The idea of "some groups being more equal than others" is a formula for disaster in the modern world. The Right would not dare acknowledge it as a goal and it is unpalatable to the vast majority of the electorate, as Romney found out last fall.
The other non-conservative you might be alluding to are the Libertarians. The reality is that in truth it is progressives that are concerned about the "American Way", free-enterprise, etc. As Teddy Roosevelt observed over 100 years ago, change and involvement by Government was necessary to keep the system fair and balanced, allowing it continue, against the adversaries that would run all the chips from the board and end the game with a handful having it all and the rest of us waiting for them to throw a crumb or two. Change is necessary to keep the system working for everyone, not changing is by definition, moving behind. Does conservative mean being resistant to any and all change, when change is the universe's only constant?
I am not comfortable having the Government take over the economy, but the conservative remains against any common sense role for the Government as a referee. That, in my opinion, is required
Groups are ultimately composed of individuals and I concur with your paragraph! What choas would we have when over 300 millions decide to do whatever they like without regard for others?
He is a long winded link that you can peruse in your spare time. It certainly helps one get over writer's block
OK, now; i went and looked up some stats, as I am prone to do. I found this for NYC:
Victims: White-30%; Black-37%; Hispanic-35%; Other-8%
Suspect: White-17%; Black-50%; Hispanic-30%; Other-3%
Arrested: White-23%; Black-37%;Hispanic-36%; Other-4% (now THAT is interesting
Population: White-33%; Black-23%-Hispanic-29%: Other-15%
Stop and Frisk: White-10%; Black-55%; Hispanic-32%; Other-3%
All of this comes from the NYC Crime Annual Crime Report-2012. Now rather than bore you with more data, let me say these top level figures are VERY misleading (sorry Clarence). The underlying figures show that for firearm and violent-type crimes, those things you might be Stopped and Frisked for, Blacks are in the 70% while Whites are between 4 and 14%. Whites favorite pastime seems to be drugs and grand larceny; Blacks are by far the most popular target for being shot (74%) while Whites don't have to worry much at 3%.
My computer has frozen, I will have to add the rest later.
ME, the problem for me is that I hear that the results of the 'stop and frisk ' reveal more the fact that too many have been stopped relative to those where it was determined that there was justification to stop them.
I confronted many conservatives asking them if they would tolerate such a practice by the police in their own community? Response: the silence was deafening.
So there it is, 'some people are more equal than others'?
BUMMER, All of the stats I gave at the beginning were for Criminal Mischief, the real crimes are much worse for Blacks and Hispanics ranging from 75% of arrestees for Shootings for Blacks down to 52% for Felony Assault; and 43% for Rape for Hispanics down to 22% for Shootings. The highest arrest rate for Whites is 15% for Grand Larceny.
Here is a great article on Stop and Frisk - https://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/privac … lice-stop.
After reading it, I understand the concept and favor it. So now it comes down to what it was that the Federal Judge was presented that was persuasive enough to obtain a ruling that 1) the Stops and/or Frisks were unreasonable, and therefore a violation of the 4th Amendment or 2) that minorities were being unreasonably targeted, a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Having looked at the crime and Stop/Frisk statistics, I would have a hard time believing minorities were being unfairly targeted in terms of numbers in this particular case. However, in terms of reasonableness of the Stops and especially the Frisks, it could very well play a role.
Sorry, ME, I received a 404 on the link that you provided
I will say that I have never objected to a greater police presence in areas with higher crime rates regardless of who lives there. Of course, if you are in a hispanic neighborhood the chances are pretty good that the police will have a disproportionate amount of hispanics stopped and frisked relative to others.
It is not so much for me a racial issue as one of WHY people are being stopped. After watching Meet the Press yesterday and hearing from the New York police commissioner who supported the policy, he brought out an example or two. He said that the fact that 88% of those that were stopped and not found to be guilty of anything was misleading. He said that while they could not be charged with anything, their behavior was mischievous. I could agree with him, that as a law officer if I saw someone going down the street turning door knobs of houses on the block, that would constitute 'reasonable suspicion'. But, if that occurred in Westwood or Beverly Hills, any good cop would conclude the same. I would be obliged to stop the perpetrator and ask for identification, call in and see if he has a record. The frisk procedure needs to meet a higher standard than the stop and question. If the person stopped has no explanation for his or her behavior, has a "record" or could not identify himself, that may well be grounds to frisk. But that is much different than herding people into the process like cattle, submitting the haystack to indignity justified by the search for the needle. The problem remains that anywhere else people that under almost any circumstance would be considered not displaying behavior that reach the standard of 'reasonable suspicion' are stopped. Can I be stopped for looking at a police officer crosseyed or 'flipping the bird'?
Am I missing something here? Bloomberg is a self-professed liberal, and a registered Independent... where exactly is the "rightwinger's ediface" (sic)?
You know, Shawn, I like both definitions for ediface
1.A building, esp. a large, imposing one.
2.A complex system of beliefs.
I am going to take them both down, plank by plank
I was speaking about the Rightwing universe in general. . Bloomberg is a conservative, he could not really support the 'stop and frisk' if he wasn't.
By New York standards, he is a conservative, just about as far to the right as a blue state like New York would tolerate.
If you think that the wholesale trampling of the 4th amendment is a "conservative" issue, then there is a serious misunderstanding of what it means to be a conservative.
Stop and Frisk is an example of how they (conservatives) are quick to dismiss the importance of what the 4th amendment means. Like I said, I wish that they half as much zeal for the rest of the Constitution as they have for the Second Amendment!
We keep agreeing on things. How does that happen? LOL You are right when you say that supporting this practice is not conservative. There is something wrong with treating everybody like a criminal. When the government watches everybody, stops people to check on them, and treats them like they are a criminal, we have taken a step towards a country that is not free. I am adamantly opposed to stop and frisk. I am not a criminal, and I don't appreciate being treated like one. What's next, search and seizure programs where all houses are inspected? How is this freedom? How is this something any conservative could support? The constitution was written to make sure things like this would never happen, and yet it happens.
When I was young, I worked fast food and saved for college. Once I was eighteen years old, I was promoted to manager. While I was attending my first year in college, money was stolen from the safe at the restaurant. I returned to find that the owner wanted to polygraph all managers. I told him that I would take the test, even though he knew it was physically impossible for me to take money when I wasn't in town and didn't know the new combination. Further, I told him that would be my last act as one of his employees. There's something inherently wrong with treating everybody like a criminal. By the way, the real crook was found and fired, and I kept my job throughout my entire first four years in college.
We keep agreeing on things.
Who knows, maybe, I am not as progressive as I like to believe that I am or your not as conservative as you like to believe you are?
There is a sensible middle ground that I like to think that we are both being gravitated toward.
I am in 100% concurrence with your 1st paragraph
While those that are not subject to stop and frisk say that the left makes a 'big deal' over this procedure relative to the crime they say it prevents, there is a certain indignity of being accused of something without any basis for the accusation. That is the biggest problem here.
According to the Supreme Court, S&F is quite legal so long as the police have "reasonable" suspicion that ... and then they go on to list what qualifies first what is reasonable for the Stop (many of which require the cops to be honest cops) and another, less restrictive list, for the Frisk, which can only occur after the Stop; notice that the Court did not say probable cause, which would be needed to actually arrest the person, rather than temporarily detain them.
What the Judge found unconstitutional in the NY case was the way the NYC police were implementing it, which, it would appear, ignored the "reasonable" part of the requirement. The judge ordered a "tightening" up of NYC's rules and some "outreach", I think, in addition to a way to monitor the police Stops.
We have the same problem in the UK. To the police "reasonable suspicion" is more often than not, the wrong colour, the wrong dress or the wrong behaviour.
There was a case some years ago, when a chief constable declared that it was legitimate to stop and search all black people as they had no legitimate business in Wilmslow.
John, trhe example you provided is the primary point in my objections to the 'stop and frisk' policy.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 w/ both John and you, Credence2! If you are Black or non-Caucasians in certain areas, according the police, you are quite suspect.
Blacks and other non-Caucasians ARE oftentimes deemed guity by the police until proven otherwise.
Hi, Grace, it is not so much an issue that more minorities are stopped if the incidents of crime by these groups are higher in general. My problem is that the quality of stops by police are frivolous and not meeting the standard of any sort of reasonable suspicion. Without a process or guideline, innocent citizens can be wholesale harassed and entire communities intimidated not much unlike Gestapo tactics. You cannot subject the entire haystack to indignity just so you can find your needle. This is not the American Way
I know some searches by the police are indeed veriable in many cases. However, some are quite insignificant and minor in nature. Many Blacks and other non-Caucasians are subjected to searches for things that their comparative Caucasian counterparts are not.
"Who knows, maybe, I am not as progressive as I like to believe that I am or your not as conservative as you like to believe you are?"
Oh my... Do I recall...
Way back in 2012, 10:40 pm, October 10th to be exact, (not really, I made that date up), in an exchange over some left vs. right topic, I warned you to be careful, if you continued to abandon party rhetoric in favor of rational reason, I would draw you away from the Dark Side.
With the help of Education Answer, (and perhaps others), it looks like you have been nudged closer to seeing the light.
Come Cred, come closer, you can be a Purple too. It won't hurt at all.
"Who knows, maybe, I am not as progressive as I like to believe that I am or your not as conservative as you like to believe you are?"
GA, it ain't time for kumbaya yet. I don't have problems with moderate conservatives or GOP, but it is the bomb throwers that dominate the conservative landscape and the GOP party these days. I have as much in common with these guys as I would with Grace Kelly. There is no 'tit for tat', to find a left wing as radical and obstructive, I would have to go back to Abby Hoffman, Eldridge Cleaver and Timothy Leary and revisit the 'Summer of Love'
Education Answer is a reasonable fellow amonst a difficult crowd. You participated in this thread, how easy was it for you to get conservatives, one in particular, to see what was otherwise in plain sight for most of us in regards to 'stop and frisk'? There was nothing to nudge, EA already knew the score and once the facts to the case were revealed he takes the most rational route, as he is prone to do. There are some streaks of red in all of us, but I take issue only with those who are crimson and incorrigible.
[As I do not have time to go back and read all of other comments right now, I am addressing only the original article.]
I'm an old copper, and I have to confess that I agree with you. What the police in New York have been conducting are called "Terry stops," which find their legal justification in Terry v. Ohio (1968). The problem for the police in New York is that Terry v. Ohio is very clear that a stop-and-frisk requires reasonable suspicion. That standard is less than probable cause, but it's a good bit more than a mere gut feeling. Certainly any kind of profiling falls well outside the bounds of the law. The judge's decision was absolutely spot on, and it is indeed a decision to celebrate. The rule of law triumphs over fear and racism.
I would be remiss if I didn't also point out that the decrease in crime that New York (and, for the most part, the whole U.S.) has experienced has very little (if anything) to do with police tactics. Criminologists were predicting this decline at least thirty years ago, and the real reason for it is the aging-out phenomenon. A disproportionate amount of crime is committed by young people in the 15-24 age cohort, as much as half of all Index crime in some years. As people age, become more mature, get married, and take on family responsibilities, their criminal behavior declines substantially. As the Baby Boomers have aged out, the 15-24 cohort has become smaller, and this has inevitably led to lower crime rates. Thus, the decline is the result of changing demographics, but of course, the police have tried their best to claim credit for it.
Hi, Will, you are spot on, the New York politicians are quick to use this policy to support a reason for the declining crime rates. Your explanation is quite palatble when one examines it. I am glad that we see eye to eye on this, for as I have said before 'the ends do not justify the means' I don't think that police can suapect someone for merely leaning on a lamppost on a street corner. Thanks for weighin in!
Great victory for the people of New York. IMO, if I had the choice, a patdown would be preferable than a complete invasion of every human right I hold dear. When will the courts come to a decision for the people concerning the outlaws currently running the federal government?
Distractions from the real issues at hand!
That is easy for you to say RB. Your opinion about the current administration is not commonly shared. The 'outlaws' were reelected, so what went wrong?
Exactly who elected the FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, IRS..... All blatantly guilty of illegal activity.
I am not speaking of just the murderer-in-chief but all of those carrying out crimes against the people, as well as humanity! I applaud the ruling on the "stop and frisk" program.
Why do you defend illegal activity?
Why does the SCOTUS not come to a decision on the Patriot Acts, NDAA, etc..?
Because muh-muh national security?
I know the enemy, it is us!
Neither is preferable in a free society. I am for liberty, not conservatism.
We should just imprison every individual that has the potential of committing a crime. A new agency should be constructed, the PCA (Pre Crime Agency). That will ensure everyone is safe. Lockup everyone in a solitary 10x10 cell.
We would all sleep so much better!
This is a portion of the speech that President John F. Kennedy gave at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on April 27, 1961.
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
"No President should fear public scrutinity of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers-- I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-- and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First (emphasized) Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution-- not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news-- for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security...
"And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of mans deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news-- that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."
http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/jfk_s … script.htm
I would be happy about stop and search if it was used as intended. That is to target and make life more difficult for known lawbreakers.
Unfortunately it isn't used in this way. It is used as a form of harassment for those who are seen as not belonging to mainstream society. " Hey, look at that guy with long hair, he must be a thief or drug user. Let's have him" or "Look,a black guy. let's have him".
When I see as many suits being stopped and searched then I'll be quite happy.
Until that happens I cannot see it as done to protect the public, rather it reminds me of tyrannical societies where you expect a knock on the door at three in the morning.
I agree with you John it should be used proportionately.
But I wont call all police officers racist jackbooted fascists the same as I wont call all black men drug dealers or Asians being terrorists or white people racist.
There is obviously something wrong when only 3% of searches result in a conviction or caution but I don't see how stopping the procedure will help.
If stop and search results in only 3% conviction or caution then the procedure is totally irrelevant and should be stopped on those grounds alone.
Absolutely agree. It becomes obvious it is being used as a deterrent and/or simply to hassle someone. In neither case is there any hint of "reasonable supsicion". Shut it down
3% of 1.1 million is a lot John, but the disproportionate use is not good.
No, 3% of 1.1 million still means that 97 out of every hundred people stopped and searched are doing nothing wrong.
Yes John 97 out of a hundred get to go on their way whilst 3 in a hundred are not.
33,000 convictions is not a bad thing is it?
Maybe we should let everybody just carry what they please in the streets without any question at all.
If you could think of another way of doing it I am sure you would get huge support.
In America, that is what defines our concept of Liberty; gov't does not intrude on our personal lives unless there is probable cause to do so. Those who believe that are called, by definition, Liberals, in this country (much to the chagrin of many of those who think of themselves as Conservatives), those who don't fall under other categories such as Socialist, Conservative, Fascist, etc.; the fundamental difference between those labels and the Liberal label is which is more important, the individual (Liberal) or the group (the others).
33,000 out of 1.1 million is abysmal! And how many of those 33,000 were major criminals, murderers, drug dealers, major fraudsters and how many were leery kids being little more than a nuisance?
And yes, I can think of another way of doing it. Use these hundreds of thousands of man hours that are wasted on harassing innocent people to investigate crimes and catch criminals.
I don't know John how's my of those Leary kids were carting a knife? How many of those Leary kids have stabbed someone in the past. If you define all criminals as mr big then why not let those who commit minor offences like dealing drugs to kids, knife users, gun toting kids just walk the streets without fear of being accosted.
I suppose you could look at it another way, maybe stop and search is acting as a deterrent.
You seem to favour locking up leery kids to locking up the Mr Bigs!
I am in favour of locking up criminals John, something which I have deduced by your posts you are not in favour of.
Like so many of your deductions that is so wrong!
I am not however, vindictive.
Is it vindictive to detect crime and lock up the criminals then John?
No, but it is vindictive not to care whether the criminal or somebody innocent is locked up.
And I suppose there are a huge amount of innocent people locked up for crimes they didn't commit.
I think we've been here before.
I still think if you are innocent you wouldn't object to a search to enforce that point.
One person hanged for a crime they didn't commit is one too many.
You remind me of my father.
When I complained at my father about being regularly stopped by the police, never with anything coming of it, he told me that as I was innocent I shouldn't object to the police just doing their job.
Then one day he was stopped by the police. We never heard the end of it, he was going to complain to the chief constable and I don't know what else.
Remarkably, we actually agree here. I do not enjoy being treated like a criminal, and I find the practice of stop and frisk reprehensible. It may result in the arrest of criminals, but it also results in a loss of freedom. I believe it is a violation of search and seizure and a violation, a violation of liberty.
We agree on something.
It is John.
I have worked in the security industry for 27 years and have been searched on many occasions, I see it as a necessary part of security and being secure.
What planet do you come from Speeder? What you propose are fascism and tyranny. I thought that Britain is a modern democracy and it more than any others could appreciate the need to preserve the right of the individual to be innocent until proving guilty. No, sir, I will not tolerate being stopped and harrassed by police merely because of my color or some other superficial reason. You are searched in your industry as part of your job and as a condition of your employment, surely you can see the difference. I allow a search of my person when I board a plane as a condition of flying. What kind of police state are you advocating here?
So just because I have a certain job I must not be innocent until I am proved innocent?
If you think everyone on the street is a law abiding citizen then all well and good but it is illegal to carry a weapon in the UK and it is illegal to carry drugs how will you find those who do? I suppose you would wait until they use the weapon or sell the drugs to kids then......
Actually it appears to be you who likes to think that everybody is guilty until proved innocent.
Why don't we lock everybody up apart from the guards? Except the guards may not be trustworthy either so lock them up as well.
No I don't John, I think a quick search does no harm unless you have an agenda of political gain. Why would you not agree to a search if you were innocent?
Why don't we just lock the criminals up instead of letting them roam our streets, but then how would you know they are criminals? That's right give them every opportunity to commit the crimes they are tooled up to do!
Speeder, I know that you live in England, but what you tell us that we should accept is not tolerated in the United States, and we use the courts to make sure that it never come to that.
Rather than treating and herding people like cattle, there is no substitute for good police work, working within confines of established Constitutional principles, otherwise there is no limit to harassment put upon one group or the other for purposes unknown.
It's only tolerated in the UK by a few extremists.
It is tolerated by the majority John as it seems only minorities complain incessantly about the law.
How will you know who the criminal is of you don't check? As I said some would wait until the crime is committed before trying to work out who done it.
America has a history of lawful measures to aid the criminals, the frisk ruling will do nothing for the law abiding citizens of NY or any where else.
" As I said some would wait until the crime is committed before trying to work out who done it."
I'm speechless! The police know when somebody is about to commit a crime but they still have to stop people at random to catch them!
So you would wait till a drunk driver killed someone before you stopped them for drink driving then John?
How would you know they have been drink driving if they wasn't stopped at random?
Same thing as stop and search really.
Not allowed to stop motorists at random - they need cause.
And anyway, that would be preventing a greater crime rather than solving it before it had happened.
Then you are telling me they can not stop someone at random? So when they do their roadside mass random stops they are breaking the law then John? Must remember that one.
And stopping someone carrying a gun or a knife wouldn't be preventing a greater crime then?
You must remember that driving a car is not a right, it is a privilege but walking along in a public place is a right, not a privilege.
I can't believe I find myself agreeing with John...
I need to go lie down.
So walking the streets with the means to cause harm is a right then John?
As I have said before if you are doing nothing wrong why should you have an objection to being stopped and asked in the intrest of public safety?
Because I am a peaceful person, have never done anyone any harm.
Being surrounded by three or four policemen in front of my peers suggests to my peers that I have done something wrong.
Remember, you said that stop and search only resulted in 3% facing any caution or charge.
It's an unbelievable waste of manpower.
Over 30000 convictions John, as for waste of time wouldn't the coppers be on the streets anyway, or should they be siting in a station waiting for something to happen?
so for that 30,000 you are quite happy for 970,000 innocent people to be stopped and searched!
Have you ever actually tired to call the police?
A couple of years ago somebody was breaking in a neighbours flat. The police turned up about twelve hours later.
The police were probably too busy doing random stop and searches to attend.
Because it's unconstitutional? You guys are always braying about the Constitution.
Make them bray more, Ralph—post these points every chance you get and hear 'em squeal!
Nowhere in our Constitution does it say we’re a Christian nation.
In fact, no where in our Constitution does the word “Christian” appear even once.
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion—it also doesn’t specify any particular religion.
The 2nd Amendment actually refers to a “well regulated militia.” While it says the right for Americans to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the phrase “well regulated” obviously infers that this right doesn’t come without regulations.
Our Constitution doesn’t mention anything about our nation having to be based on pure Capitalism.
A corporation is an entity, not a person, and our Constitution wasn’t created to protect the rights to entities—they have none.
Education is more important than national defense. What’s the point of a strong national defense if there’s nothing worth defending?
You're absolutely right Silverspeeder, 100%! Why stop there though? I say, if you're not doing anything wrong, then you should have no problem with the Government screening your mail. You shouldn't have a problem with them monitoring every phone call/email/text message in the country, And while we're at it, why not make everyone wear tracking devices at all times, that way they know for sure where we are, that would make finding criminals much easier, and hey: if you're not doing anything wrong then you shouldn't have anything to worry about right?
I can imagine similar discussions taking place in Germany in the '30s.
I am not doing anything wrong and the government know who I am anyway, I have a passport, a driving licence, I am on an electoral roll, I work in an industry that is one of the most regulated in the UK, if the government want to check my e-mail or post so be it, if a police officer wants to check I have a driving licence or that I am not carrying a gun or I am not selling drugs to kids I have no objection, if it makes society safer for me and my children to live in then I have no objection to that either.
The world has changed since the 30's and freedom comes with constraints so that law abiding citizens know they are safe and will remain safe.
But it doesn't though, does i?
If the single woman who lived in the flat I mentioned had been at home how safe do you think she would have felt with a police response time of twelve hours?
Do you honestly think oppression starts with Storm Troopers marching through the streets? It starts, as history has shown us time and time again, with leaders "doing what they must" for National Security, and "taking some hard steps" to "insure the greater good".
The world hasn't changed nearly as much since the '30s as you think it has, the Patriot Act is proof enough of that.
Of course it doesn't start with storm troopers, it starts with gangsters and criminals roaming our streets doing as they please.
It seems there are those in favour of a no chance policy, that is a no chance of catching criminals or terrorists because it may infringe on what you perceive to be an erosion of your freedom.
I don't think you really understand what we're talking about here, because you seem to be talking about something completely different.
No one is saying that cops shouldn't be able to target high crime areas, or that they shouldn't question people in those areas. No one is saying that, if the cops see someone doing something suspicious, they shouldn't be able to stop and talk to them.
What I'm saying is that cops should not be able to stop and frisk any and everyone on the street, in order to go fishing for criminal activity. Doing so is not only a clear violation of the the 4th Amendment, it's also contrary to the spirit and intent of our entire criminal justice system, which is based on the principal of innocent until proven guilty.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" ~Sir William Blackstone
Damn! Done it again
Still no comment from Silver on the break in that I mentioned in another post.
So has that been happening in the US then? Whole streets being stopped and searched for no reason?
It hasn't happened as yet in the UK unless there has been an incident but if that's what happening then I can see why you are miffed. I think it would be unusual for the police in the UK to search everyone in Oxford street on a Saturday afternoon but it may be a usual occurrence here for police to search a group of teenagers hanging around on a street where they have major drug problems, is this wrong or not.
That's the whole basis for the "Stop and Frisk" law, and it's exactly what has people so upset.
Stopping and frisking teenagers acting suspiciously in a known crime area is okay. As a former "suspicious teenager" myself (hanging out with friends in the orange groves, and drinking back in High School), there is nothing wrong with that practice, that's called reasonable suspicion, and it's perfectly fine.
Simply walking up to people at random, with no reasonable suspicion, and stopping and frisking them, just in case they might be up to something is not okay.
But you said that stop and search resulted in the caution or conviction of only 3%!
And how many of that 3% were major drug dealers, how many kids with a bit of blow or a couple of tablets?
Well John if they were convicted or cautioned they were breaking the law.
Are you suggesting that we should stop the action and let criminals do as they please because it may just inconvenience you?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
When the police are stopping around 970,000 innocent people the criminals are breaking into our homes safe in the knowledge that the police will not pursue them.
That's rubbish john, it would be better to stop the burglar before he commits the crime and that has happened with the stop and search procedure no doubt.
The police will always pursue burglaries John, I don't know where you get that idea from that they wont, but as you are a great believer in evidence then I would expect you to know that its a very difficult crime to prove against a suspected burglar, unless of course you stop and search them.
You're still missing the point. When cops use a "stop and frisk" style method, then they're relying solely on the laws of probability, and a fair amount of luck; hardly effective police work.
But those were the figures you quoted, are you now telling me they are rubbish?
How do you know if somebody is out to commit a burglary? Is it the mask, or the stripped jumper or the bag marked swag. Or perhaps they carry a notice of intent!
The truth is that stop and search will catch very few burglars and those will be the least experienced.
So you are telling me that you don't believe my story of my neighbours burglary! I could give you countless examples but if you don't believe!
The truth is that the police attend most burglaries to give the victim a crime number, not to make any attempt to catch the thieves.
You must stop this Shawn,people will think we are on the same side
@Wizard, while I must agree with most of what you say, I have to disagree on one thing - a Corporation is a person, in the eyes of the law. While this is not written was such in the Constitution; long, long ago, either in the very late 1700s or early 1800s, the courts recognized the need to recognize Corporations (not partnerships, LLCs, and the like) as people in terms of contract law; and they used the Constitutions guarantee of property rights as a basis for this ruling. I absolutely agree future Courts have gone too far, such as the Roberts' Court, but, when you think about it, that is Congress's fault, isn't it. They wrote the law defining a Corporation as a person in the first place.
While I agree with you about the importance of education, I see them as mutually supporting; if one fails, the other fails.
I have to disagree Esoteric because the greedy have perverted the meaning of the words and concepts to suit their own interests . . .
company, firm, business, concern, operation, house, organization, agency, trust, partnership; conglomerate, group, chain, multinational; informal outfit, setup.
that person over there is the one who called the police: human being, individual, man/woman, child, human, being, (living) soul, mortal, creature; personage, character, customer;
1 crowds of people: human beings, persons, individuals, humans, mortals, (living) souls, personages, 'men, women, and children'; informal folks.
An abstract idea invented for business is absolutely not the same as a human being(s).
I don't believe there is any law defining a corporation as a person. The Roberts court pulled that one out of the air in its decision that the First Amendment applies with regard to political contributions to corporations the same as it does to people.
Also sorry, Wizard, you have to look up the definition of a "legal person", which is "(Law) an individual or group that is allowed by law to take legal action, as plaintiff or defendant. It may include natural persons as well as fictitious persons (such as corporations).
This definition works fine, and is actually needed for contract and tort law, but "not" for 1st Amendment cases, IMO. For some odd reason, the Court has not listened to my opinion and has ruled that Corps do have 1st Amendment rights; they have ruled this several times now with the admonition to Congress, if you don't like our ruling, change your damn law; but until then, our hands are tied.
OK, I see where you are coming from @Wizard. Then what is your substitute for protecting its Constitutionally guaranteed property rights. You could say that the Constitution doesn't say a Corperation IS protected, and you would be right. The problem was that stockholders in the Corporation, who are People, as you define them, were losing their guaranteed property rights because Corporations were not legal persons at one time' and this loophole was used to deprive a corporation, and therefore its stockholder owners, the rights to the the property it acquired in the name of the stockholders, who, as I have said, are real people protected under the Constitution.,
So, by corollary, not counting a Corporation as a legal person for property rights purposes is effectively denying real people the guarantees of the Constitution. The Congress needs to rewrite the law such that it ONLY applies to property rights.
Some say reversing the Citizens United Supreme Court decision may require a Constitutional amendment. Hopefully, changes to the voting rights act may do the job. Government financed elections would be the best solution.
I don't have to come up with a "substitute" law, and certainly there can be a law written that distinguishes between the rights of individual people and the collective rights of an organization. Besides stockholders still have their individual rights regardless of thaere participation in a colllective business venture that speculates and risks their pooled properties.
@Wizard, interesting. Let's take the other important "person" aspect of corporationhood. A real person can own stock in a corporation, without fear of being sued individually, one of the major advantages of corporations and a behind-the-scenes reason for progress. How do you sue a cow, if you have a beef with it (no pun intended) because of some damage it is doing to your property; no you sue the owner. Same think with a corporation, who do you sue? You can't sue the CEO, they are just an employee; so, you must sue all of the owners, how about all of the owners of Microsoft? That, of course, is impractical.
Also, in America, both sides have the right to be represented in court that means you have to sue "somebody", who can represent themselves, and not "something" which cannot. In your view, a corporation is a "something" and cannot be sued. In the legal world, the corporation was turned into a "virtual person" so that it could be sued.
By the way, the second phrase in your first sentence is a substitute law. I would think, and one that needs to be better defined by Congress given past Supreme Court decisions.
Then tell me @Wizard, how do you sue a "something" and get relief from it?
My Esoteric, please please quote the post you are replying to - or none at all.
Please stop with the petty sophistry! Liability laws were weakened because the oligarchs influenced the politicians who, in turn, stacked the courts to uphold the injustice.
Well, how about this, why don't we simply investigate the bank accounts and financial dealings, without warrants of course, of the Mr. Bigs, because it only stands to reason that if they got that rich, they have to be doing something illegal. So, let's catch them before they do anything more illegal.
The lerry kids use knives, the Mr. Bigs use fraud and deception, what is the difference?
Speeder, the requirement for law enforcement to adhere to the 4th amd 14th amendments is reason enough.in having objective and supportable 'probable cause' or reasonable suspicion as the only ground to stop and accost pedestrian passers by. I don't know about Britain, but here police cannot stop and harrass just because they don't like your looks!
Conservatives feel that the government gets in the way more often than it helps. That doesn't mean that conservatives do not believe in laws and some regulation. Conservatives do belief in some federal laws and some regulation. They just want them minimized to only the most essential. It seems as if many people seem to believe that conservatives do not believe in laws and change. We do believe in both, but only when they are beneficial. In most instances, the majority of laws, regulations, and "change" result in an erosion of personal responsibility, freedom, choice, and our savings.
How many laws and regulations do we have that are never enforced? In my profession, teaching, we are regulated to death. If it's not one meeting, paper, or mandate, it's another. We often joke about not having time to teach, because we're so busy filling out bureaucratic paperwork, especially if you have a student who has learning disabilities. I'm quite confident many people, in many professions, feel that they are regulated to death.
Do Conservatives measure progress only in terms of dollars and cents or do they include the human condition as well. If the latter is included how do Conservatives reconcile the fact that that the only times human condition as improved in human history has been under progressive, liberal (in the original meaning) leadership and pressure. Also, how do Conservatives explain why it is they and minimal state liberals fought so hard to hold back improving the condition of the masses? For example, the latest movie on Abraham Lincoln was all about the passage of the 13th Amendment; Progressives and active state liberals, including Lincoln, were lined up on one side and Conservatives and minimal state liberals were lined up on the other; that wasn't fiction, a quick read of any history book will bear that out, and that is how it has been throughout history.
Conservatives measure greater freedom and less government intrusion as success. Some liberals miss the point and think we measure it on dollars and cents. Money is not the core belief of conservatism any more than welfare is the core belief of liberalism. Both ideologies are deeper than that.
It is your OPINION that liberals and progressives are the only people who have successfully improved the "human condition." It is a simple view, one that few historians or economists, in my opinion, would support in its entirety.
IF I were to talk about the founding fathers and how conservative some or most of them were, you'd call them progressive. When republicans claim Lincoln as a fellow republican, many liberals are quick to say that republicans from 1860 are quite different than republicans of today. Then, when it fits your purpose, you want to claim Lincoln as a progressive? It's a bit convenient.
The truth is far more complex than anything we could thoroughly debate here or anything that one might see in a movie produced by Hollywood. There have been successful liberals and successful conservatives. Some have been successful despite their politics and because of Congress. Others have been successful despite Congress. There have also been failures on both sides. Claiming "that that the only times human condition [sic] as improved in human history has been under progressive, liberal leadership" is total fiction and fallacy just as it would be if I claimed the same for conservative republicans. Both of us, by our nature, believe our ideology is better, but neither of us could factually say that all of the successes our country has enjoyed can be attributed to our side only. That's just not true.
Please, let's get past bold, rhetoric and debate the issues. Claiming one side is, was, and has ALWAYS been the only successful ideology does nothing to further reality or this debate.
Sorry, @Education, it is hardly opinion; name me one time in history when Conservatives, of the Edmund Burke-William F. Buckley Jr. mold every advanced the cause of the human condition for the masses? It has always been the Progressives/Liberals who have championed the cause of social justice.
From the very beginning, it was Liberals who founded this country and Conservatives who sided with the British. From there, the active state liberals became your Federalists, led by Hamilton and Adams, and the minimal state liberals and the losing Conservatives who didn't go back to England or move to Canada joined the Democratic-Republican Party that Jefferson led.
The Federalists sort of went off the deep-end and Jefferson was smart enough to expand the umbrella of his Party to encompass some of the ideals of the Federalists; the Federalists disappeared from the scene. From that point on, active state liberalism (social progressivism) was squeezed out of the political arena until Lincoln.
That was the first great progressive move forward with the emanci[ation of the Blacks, not that it did much good. The Conservative Supreme Court undid virtually all of the laws Congress passed to implement the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment by 1884 and the Conservative South had risen to its former oppressive glory, just without "formal" slavery. It wasn't until 1954 and Dwight D. Eisenhower, definitely not a Conservative, not a Liberal either, got things going again in Little Rock. Not too long before , that, the women finally got the right to vote, another progressive agenda hotly contested by Conservatives. That, my friend his history, not opinion.
We can continue with this, but your statements are so broad and sweeping that it's very difficult to really address each of the claims you make. I'll begin at the beginning, the American Revolution.
None of the founding fathers would be considered liberal by today's standards, not even the strongest federalists of the day. Adams was the only federalist president, but he was no liberal by today's standards. Federalists wanted the most rudimentary federal government, one that provided a standing army and basic federal necessities. To claim that federalists were liberal is a push. By today's standards, both Adams and Hamilton would be conservatives, the William Buckley kind that you mentioned. Further, there were plenty of anti-federalists who opposed Britain; Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were two such people. Your desire to make liberals and progressives responsible for every good thing that happened seems to go against historical facts.
Prohibition was one of the great causes that was championed by progressives, but you fail to mention it and instead claim people who where not liberal for your own. This is historical revision. Both sides were responsible for successes and failures.
Oh, I strongly have to disagree with the notion that the Founding Fathers were not liberal. Everything they said and did--from thumbing their noses at the king to authoring the Constitution and Bill of Rights--was the antithesis of conservatism. The problem is that nowadays we assume that "liberal" equals "Democrat" and that "conservative" equals "Republican," and that just doesn't work. We can't think of twenty-first century Democrats versus Republicans when we're analyzing the words and actions of people in the eighteenth century. The Founding Fathers were neither Democrat nor Republican according to today's standards, but they were most definitely "liberal" according to the standards of any time. If they weren't, we'd be flying the Union Jack.
As the majority of the constitution and bill of rights concerns limits to be set on government rather than the powers of it, I would label the writers as more conservative in nature. Even conservatives can and will revolt when government becomes too intrusive; indeed, that is probably the most common cause of revolt.
You're using modern political definitions of liberal and conservative, and that just doesn't work. A conservative is committed to the status quo, and a liberal is willing to discard tradition. By definition--leaving present-day politics aside--the Founding Fathers were unequivocally liberal.
Conservatives are committed to individual liberty, limited government, a capitalistic free-market economy, a strong national defense, and a federal government that does not trample the rights of states and people. They are not opposed to change and will, in fact, advocate change if any of these underlying ideologies are trampled upon by the government.
Conservatives do not necessarily believe that there should be no change. See if you can find a single conservative that doesn't want to change the current leader of the executive branch. LOL! Ask many conservatives about flag burning, the line-item veto, or a balanced budget, and you will often find that many of us are willing to go so far as to constitutionally make change.
Conservatives are very interested in preserving the Constitution, as it is a document that widely protects people from big, over-reaching government.
Of course I'm using modern definitions of those terms. Using archaic definitions from hundreds of years in the past does not normally result in good communication.
Now, if we were discussing what those people would have labeled themselves, that would be a different story - then those old definitions would necessarily be what would be used. But we aren't, or at least I wasn't.
You are absolutely right. The constitution limits government power and explicitly protects people from big, over-reaching government. That is a conservative ideology.
You need to define how you are using the word "liberal". If you are using the modern definition you are not really being fair to the founding fathers, who were liberal in the traditional meaning of the term.
The conservatives of the time were for over reaching government, the liberals opposed to it.
The only possible reason to use those meanings would either be for a historical play or document or to confuse people.
This forum is not a historical play...
If you went into a political science classroom today in any university, those are the terms you would hear and the context you would hear them in, sorry.
If you went into a graduate-level history classroom in my university, you'd learn that federalists and anti-federalists were conservative by today's standards.
John Adams -
"The happiness of society is the end of government."
Thomas Jefferson -
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
George Washington -
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
James Madison -
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
Alexander Hamilton -
"It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government."
Ben Franklin -
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
If you went into a graduate-level history classroom in my university, you'd learn that federalists and anti-federalists were conservative by today's standards.
Conservative by 'today's standard is not the point, many were slaveholders and would be considered dinosaurs today. They have to be evaluated based on the era in which they lived, that is the only objective and fair yardstick.
Actually, I am aware that progressivism was responsible for prohibition, the Evangelical side of the movement; they were also responsible for the public school system and a few other niceties; but as always, with the good, comes some bad.
America was founded on the principles of liberalism as defined in the Age of Enlightenment professed by such philosophers as Thomas Hobbes and more importantly John Locke. They were in, as @TX points out, direct opposition to and created as an alternative to conservatism.
- If you truly believe in individuality over structured social order and status, then you are a liberal
- If you believe there should be have and have nots in this world, then you are a conservative
- If you believe women are naturally subservient to men, you are a conservative
- If you believe tradition is only a guideline, you are a liberal
- If you believe the Rights of Man come from a Hobbesian "State of Nature". you are liberal
- If you believe the Rights of Man come from God, you are a conservative.
As to "limited" government, if Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Washington, and Jefferson couldn't agree as to what that really meant, why should we expect modern day Americans to. Madison and Hamilton came to huge loggerheads over the issue when arguing over the creation of a National Bank. Hamilton won with Washington deciding "limited" was more broadly defined than Madison wanted at the time. Madison finally changed his mind and agreed to a broader definition when he was President when he created the 2nd National Bank. So "limited" is only in the eye of the beholder, in my opinion, and I leave it up to the sometimes fickle Supreme Court.
Okay, let me rephrase. . . . You're ascribing modern political meanings inappropriately. According to widely accepted modern definitions of "liberal" and "conservative," the Founding Fathers were liberal. Try to remove the unnecessary political connotations and use the pure apolitical meanings of the words.
My definition of conservative differs from yours. You seem to believe that conservatives don't want to change anything, and that is the definition of conservatism. I believe conservatives want liberty, personal freedom, small government, and a free-market economy; I further believe that conservatives do want change when any of these beliefs are quelled by the government. By my definition, all of the founding fathers were conservative, because all of them wanted liberty, small government, personal freedom, and a free-market economy.
Or conservatives are actually liberals as they are all liberal traits.
Well, from your perspective I'm sure liberals and conservatives look similar. From an American's perspective, they are very different. That's a fair point.
"Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."
What's your point? I am not saying liberals do not value these things. What I am saying is that conservatives do too.
That if you want to talk to the rest of the world you should at least understand what everyday words mean in the rest of the world.
ETA answered before your edit
You espouse a view of socialism that doesn't match most of the definitions on the Internet. What's true for me should be true for you. I'm merely quoting the man who is widely considered the father of modern conservatism. That is a fair source when one is talking about what being a conservative means.
Don't you then agree that most modern conservatives are actually liberals?
I'm an "ugly" American; I don't care what the rest of the world thinks. LOL
I'm guessing you didn't like it? Come on . . .a little?
We really can't have 10 billion definitions, one for each individual on the planet, of the term "conservative" or "liberal" or anything else now can we, there has to be, if there is going to be effective communication, a common definition that all use. Since we are not privy to your personal definition, @Education, we must rely on the definition used in academia; don't you think that is the more reasonable approach so that we can all talk from the same page?
I used a definition the CATO Institute used to describe William Buckley's views and how HE himself described conservatism. You already said that I should reference William Buckley. I did. You just don't like what he said, and you want to use your own definition. Thanks, however, for implying that I am William Buckley; it's a great honor, though I truly do not deserve it. To become more "privy" to "my" views on what conservatism is, just Google William Buckley.
If you'd like, you can purchase 20+ years of the National Review from me. I'm trying to clear some room, and they're for sale. After reading it a bit, you might see that Buckley was consistent with his views. He supported individual liberty, limited government, a capitalistic free-market economy, a strong national defense, and a federal government that does not trample the rights of states and people. That is the definition of conservatism, per William F. Buckley.
I concur with your view, Will
Were the founding fathers liberal? You bet they were. What could be more progressive than inventing a form of government heretofor unknown in the civilized world. Who would dare speak of a republic rather than the divine right of kings? This was the 18th century, a period dominated by monarchy in every nation that mattered. If you were looking for conservatives during the period, check out the Torries. The idea of government based on rule by law and not by men was as radical as it gets for the time. And since conservatives generally are comfortable with the status quo, these men, Founding Fathers were anything but conservative. Progressives are looking to expand the rights of citizens, it started with these men and through continued effort of the progressive for the over 2 centuries that followed.
I think we need to forget politics altogether. I'm not talking about politics.
Another needless shooting in Florida, this time by redneck sheriff's deputies. They shot an innocent man 15 times in his own driveway.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … oting.html
"Two Florida cops shot an innocent, unarmed man in his own driveway. And then their sheriff started talking.
By Dahlia Lithwick|Posted Thursday, Aug. 15, 2013, at 5:49 PM
Redneck Sheriff David Morgan
"Sheriff David Morgan holds a press conference to discuss the case of an unarmed man shot by deputies in his own driveway.
"Two weeks ago, two Florida deputies shot 15 rounds at a 60-year-old unarmed Florida man who was looking for his cigarettes in his mother’s car, parked in his own driveway. Two of those bullets hit him in his left leg, which was shattered. Roy Howard Middleton says he was compliant when the cops told him to turn around. He says that as he was turning around to face deputies with his hands raised, they opened fire. (He believed his neighbors were playing a practical joke on him). The two deputies said they were responding to a 911 call about a car thief and that Middleton turned and “lunged” at them with a shiny object in his hand. Middleton is black. The two sheriff’s deputies are white.
"Sheriff David Morgan of Escambia County hastily took to the airwaves to explain that “the tragedy of this is the noncompliance to the directions of law enforcement officers," and that Middleton was “both a suspect and a victim." The two deputies were placed on administrative leave pending an investigation by the State Attorney’s Office and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Sheriff Morgan was quick to clarify for CNN that the officers followed the correct protocols. “Right now we are comfortable from a training perspective that our officers did follow standard protocols. I believe the standard we use and train to is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, which is a reasonable test.” Morgan went on to note that “[t]his is a common occurrence. We live in a very violent society.” Presumably the irony was unintentional.
"A week later six Escambia County deputies climbed through the window of a private residence, without a warrant, dragging a sleeping couple out of their bed, shooting at their two dogs, one of which later died. The police were pursuing a suspect in an armed disturbance earlier in the evening on the couple's street, found an upside-down bucket next to a window of their home, knocked on the door, and when nobody answered, they just entered through the window. According to a press release, “Upon encountering the people in the house, the dogs became aggressive. One dog bit at one of the deputy's leg. He pushed the dog away, but it came at him again so he shot the dog in self-defense, at which time the second dog began to run towards him. For his personal safety, he shot the second dog."
"The couple, who are white, say they were asleep in bed. Then the cops threw them on the ground, handcuffed them and dragged them into the hallway, and then started shooting at the dogs. No arrests were made. That case is also being investigated.
"Now, Sheriff David Morgan is a colorful character. He has garnered public attention for actions as serious as a Justice Department finding in May that the county jail he oversees is plagued by constitutional issues and still suffers from the results of a decades-long racial segregation policy, and as frivolous as wearing his military ribbons on his police uniform in defiance of Defense Department regulations. But one might hope that on the heels of the recent unpleasantness, he would be very, very careful in his public discussions of race, crime, and police conduct.
"Well, not so. This week Sheriff Morgan spoke at a weekly Rotary Club of Pensacola meeting and made it clear that the real victim of the racial injustice here is Sheriff David Morgan. You should watch it. It’s a case study in grievance- and blame-shifting. The video includes a horribly painful opening joke referring to the recent police actions and the attention they garnered as “turds” he was being forced to swallow. Your call whether the humor is rankly offensive, mildly inappropriate, or fair game. But the meat of the speech appears to be an attempt to recalibrate the media outrage generated by armed officers shooting at an unarmed black man 15 times, into media outrage that is somehow both race-blind, and targeted at black offenders.
"The substance of Morgan’s argument is that the community must "address statistics for what they are and not inject race." Then he proceeds to inject race. And then he does it again.
"Let’s go to the tape. Morgan says he is upset at the apparent "lack of race relations" in the county. In Morgan’s telling, he has made a “concerted effort to reach across the racial divide” and he believed he had built some bridges and was appalled at recent events. So far so good. But then he “extends the hand of friendship” and seeks to start a “national dialogue” based on “statistical data and the truth.”
"It is tolerated by the majority John as it seems only minorities complain incessantly about the law."
Fortunately, our rights under the Constitution aren't dependent on 'toleration by the majority.'
As you are aware the majority tolerated slavery for a couple hundred years, and women were only recently allowed to vote.
I'm still laughing at the idea of the police trying to solve crimes before they've been committed
Me too. Reminds me of "pre-crime" in the movie "Minority Report." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Report_%28film%29
I now see Shawn and I had the same thought. It was a pretty good movie. I'm a bit of a PK Dick fan.
Great point, Ralph, Gee, Speeder how can you be oblivious to these things?
Even the conservatives have come to the conclusion that within any society based upon the rule of law, this preemptive hassling by the police won't do
by kirstenblog6 years ago
I have never understood all this right wing, left wing stuff. Can anyone explain what its all about, what are these wings and do we get dipping sauce to go with em?
by Victoria Van Ness3 years ago
"With unemployment down and the housing market showing some good numbers. The second part of the health care bill taking effect and with spending up. The country is slowly moving in the right direction." -from...
by SparklingJewel4 years ago
...as I pointed out before, how does taking rights from one group secure the rights of another?“Conscience clauses are common in civilian law but conspicuously absent in the repeal legislation. Under the MRLFA,...
by Onusonus5 hours ago
Are liberals having second thoughts about how they interpret the second amendment? Do you still think that government, police, and military should be the only ones with guns?
by Charles James5 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these...
by Holle Abee6 years ago
Is burning the Qur'an even legal, according to the Constitution? Is it covered under the 1st Amendment?The SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that burning a cross is not covered by the 1st Amendment. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.