jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (192 posts)

NY "Stop and Frisk" on hold- Rightwinger gets another black eye

  1. Credence2 profile image86
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    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

    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So you don't think stop and frisk is a viable tool for the police to use then?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. My Esoteric profile image88
          My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And they would not be dispersed (if legal citizens).  So what's the problem?

            1. Reality Bytes profile image93
              Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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?

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It hasn't or it shouldn't have changed.
                We are on the same page, OK

                1. Reality Bytes profile image93
                  Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Liberty and Justice for all!

                  smile

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    '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.

            2. My Esoteric profile image88
              My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. My Esoteric profile image88
                  My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

        2. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "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.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to 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.

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  '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.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

        3. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          GA

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. GA Anderson profile image86
              GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              GA

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The question is not whether it is viable or effective, but whether it is legal or constitutional.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Here in the UK it is legal but it doesn't stop the human rights crew from bemoaning it.

          1. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image59
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image88
                My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

              2. 84
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. My Esoteric profile image88
                  My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                2. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. 84
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It's a thought. 

                    Interestingly, I have found that our academics have actually increased, from where the standards were 30-40 years ago, in some ways. 

                    It might be an interesting hub.  Thanks.

              3. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.
                Speeder:
                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?

      3. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed

          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?

          1. Reality Bytes profile image93
            Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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?

      4. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        By all means, Speeder, it is something like that!

    2. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

    3. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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".

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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

        http://www.conservativemyths.com/what-is.html

        1. My Esoteric profile image88
          My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Perfectly said!

    4. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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'?

        1. My Esoteric profile image88
          My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Again, the "more equal than others" description is part of what defines a Conservative as a conservative; that is an integral part of their belief system.

      2. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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'?

          Cred2

    5. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
      Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Am I missing something here? Bloomberg is a self-professed liberal, and a registered Independent... where exactly is the "rightwinger's ediface" (sic)?

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
          Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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!

            1. 84
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Credence2,

              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.

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. My Esoteric profile image88
                  My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

                2. GA Anderson profile image86
                  GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "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.

                  GA smile

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "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.

    6. 0
      TXSasquatchposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      [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.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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!

  2. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    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!

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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?

      1. Reality Bytes profile image93
        Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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!

    2. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Neither is preferable in a free society.  I am for liberty, not conservatism.

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        True conservatives are for freedom too; liberals just don't want the kind of freedom we value.

  3. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    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!

  4. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    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

  5. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Wow! Again lol

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Traffic is climbing; had to be nice today. big_smile

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                wink

        2. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          3% of 1.1 million is a lot John, but the disproportionate use is not good.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, 3% of 1.1 million still means that 97 out of every hundred people stopped and searched are doing nothing wrong.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image59
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image88
                My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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).

              2. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You seem to favour locking up leery kids to locking up the Mr Bigs!

                  2. My Esoteric profile image88
                    My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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?

      2. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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!

  6. 84
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. My Esoteric profile image88
          My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. 84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. 0
              TXSasquatchposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. 0
                  TXSasquatchposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. 84
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

                2. 84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You are absolutely right.  The constitution limits government power and explicitly protects people from big, over-reaching government.  That is a conservative ideology.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

            2. My Esoteric profile image88
              My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

  7. 0
    TXSasquatchposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Or conservatives are actually liberals as they are all liberal traits.

        1. 84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] 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."

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

            1. 84
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What's your point?  I am not saying liberals do not value these things.  What I am saying is that conservatives do too.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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

                1. 84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  John,

                  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.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Don't you then agree that most modern conservatives are actually liberals?

                2. 84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  John,

                  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?

      2. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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?

        1. 84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

    2. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

  8. 0
    TXSasquatchposted 3 years ago

    I think we need to forget politics altogether.  I'm not talking about politics.

  9. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    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.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V4XbBtMgs0

  10. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    "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.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm still laughing at the idea of the police trying to solve crimes before they've been committed lol

      1. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
        Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well, it worked for Tom Cruise...

        http://www.centro.net/wp-content/uploads/emerging-medias-minority-report-a-new-wave-of-motion-control-technology/Tom-Cruise-minority-Report.jpg

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

    2. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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

 
working