Racist, no – unconstitutional as hell, yes

President Donald Trump said at a police conference on Monday that Chicago should implement a “stop-and-frisk” law to help cut down on crime.

“The crime spree has a terrible blight on that city, and we will do everything possible to get it done,” Trump said at the International Association of Chiefs of Police Annual Convention in Florida, according to ABC. “It works and it was meant for problems like Chicago. It was meant for it. Stop and frisk.”

But just what is the law — and why do some see it as racist?
MORE

*****

Sorry, Mr Trump, but you’re stepping over the line here. If you can do it in Chicago, you can do it in Lafayette TN. Back the fuck up and find another solution.

This entry was posted in To Protect and Serve, WTF?. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Racist, no – unconstitutional as hell, yes

  1. tomrdcinc says:

    Crime in Chicago is a manifestation is systemic liberal policies. Liberal people, politicians, and courts have bred this baby and cracking down on it is just gonna make it mad. They have become more violent because the false promises of a black President never came true. Until this violent generation is locked up or exterminated (self), these parts of Chicago will continue to be a cesspool. Best put a wall around those neighborhoods.

  2. Robert the Biker says:

    Problem is of course, that the people* causing the problems are the same ones that all the libturds fawn over and forgive any offence because of the “turrbl turrble legacy ob de slabery”. Until they are held to the same standards of behaviour as all the rest, their behaviour will continue. Is Stop and Frisk the answer? No, but it’s probably all you’ve got until the issue of personal accountability is resolved. Question: in Tennesee, would the coppers be hassling you or the known local shitheads? If you, then you have a gripe, but if the shitheads, they made the problem for themselves. Just my views.

    Mostly of the Brown persuasion I believe.

  3. George says:

    Yep. That’s how it always starts

  4. Skipperdaddy says:

    Martial law in 3…2….1, the rhetoric both fake sides are spewing is gearinng the public up for the drastic measures they are going to impose upon us to “keep us safe”.

  5. Craig says:

    And this was the one issue I have with Kavanaugh…4th Amendment issues. Let’s see where this goes.

  6. Winston Smith says:

    Oh, just come out and say it, Stop and Frisk law for BLACK people.

    And I thought stop and frisk on contact was already the law per the supremes. And just about any contact will do.

  7. nonncom says:

    When 90% of the murders in a given area are committed by black males between the ages of 19 and 35, questing men that meet those specifics is not racial profiling…..it is playing the law of averages….

  8. NewVegasBadger says:

    Still the ends do NOT justify the means. This the excuse that all tyrants use to strip people of their rights, property and life. This will bite President Trump in the ass if he allows this to happen. There will be unintended consequences. The social ills that plague the Blacks can be solve only when Blacks no longer tolerate the culture that creates their social ills. They need to stop promoting and tolerating: women having children outside of marriage, men not taking responsibility for the children they sire, the thug/criminal life style, and the contempt they have for education and a work ethic.

    Very bad idea Mr. President. Don’t do it. It IS UNconstitutional. Remember your oath of Office and why we, The Deplorables, voted for you. Now get back to draining that damn swamp. There are too many criminals and traitors who due for a neck tie social or a one way helicopter ride.

    • pigpen51 says:

      NVB, Right on point. We should not have to have a Bill of Rights, and that was an argument during the writing of the constitution. But the fact is, we do actually have to put in writing anything that we want to insure remains in place for all times. And then, as has been proven, there will be those who try and argue over the meaning of simple words. Example- Bill Clinton, and his question of what your definition of the meaning of the word is, is.
      The 2nd amendment was quite clear and not able to be argued against to the writers of the constitution, and yet, after well over 200 years later, there are those who would be willing to completely throw it out, as being something that it is not, because of the day in which it was written, and the vague language that they say was used, that was at the time, crystal clear.
      I have decided that they can take my 2nd amendment away from me, but they will play hell taking my guns from me. As the saying goes, there will be blood. At this point, I know that most of it could be mine, but I will no longer stand down for liberals and their nonsense.

      • enn ess says:

        Our Bill of Rights are based on Gods Law and natural law, they are part of the Constitution because our Constitution is designed to specify just what the powers of the federal gov entail, and are limited to. Those are the only powers they have and no more. All other powers are designated to the States and to the People. Any laws written in contradiction to and in violation of our Constitution are in themselves Null and Void, no matter how well meaning. This is why the emphasis on Constitutional originalists in the Supreme Court is so necessary.
        Our Constitution was intentionally vaguely worded specifically because the majority of the power for governance was to be handled by the States and the People.

  9. Ogrrre says:

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, implement Project Exile nation wide.

  10. bogsidebunny says:

    “Back the fuck up and find another solution”

    Go to PLAN B for Zyklon-B aerosol dispensed via a crop-duster over the Windy city, maybe?

  11. Eric says:

    The way to truly fix this shit is to stop with these cushy (relatively speaking) prison stays.

    Pops was in prison for over a decade, and he got free healthcare, free education, Ben and Jerrys ice cream, cable TV, internet, air conditioning, etc etc etc… pretty much all the perks of your average lower class citizen, but without needing to work for any of it.

    All prisons should be labor camps that feed you bread and water, and you don’t get any luxuries at all. Make the end results of your crime an actual punishment like the old days, and these little nigglets running around shooting other little nigglets will stop quick as a hiccup.

    While you’re at it, gang affiliations get you an automatic 20 years. Problem solved.

  12. Goetz von Berlichingen says:

    At the risk of triggering some folks, stop-and-frisk has been upheld as constitutional. There are restrictions on it so as to comply with the CONUS (probable cause, etc.). Stats show that about 12%-!8% of s&f interaction result in an arrest.
    The following is from a Wikipedia article about NYC’s s&f laws/effects:

    The legal power for the police to stop and frisk members of the public comes from English law. Common law states that, without legislative changes, a police officer has the power to stop, question, and frisk suspects given reasonable circumstances. Based on a standard that holds less than probable cause, the power is granted upon the standard of reasonable suspicion. It is a question of circumstances of each individual case that determines whether reasonable detention and investigation is validated.[10]

    The United States Supreme Court made an important ruling on the use of stop-and-frisk in the 1968 case Terry v. Ohio, hence why the stops are also referred to as Terry stops. While frisks were arguably illegal, until then, a police officer could search only someone who had been arrested, unless a search warrant had been obtained. In the cases of Terry v. Ohio, Sibron v. New York, and Peters v. New York, the Supreme Court granted limited approval in 1968 to frisks conducted by officers lacking probable cause for an arrest in order to search for weapons if the officer believes the subject to be dangerous. The Court’s decision made suspicion of danger to an officer grounds for a “reasonable search.”

    A little knowledge can forestall a lot of rage. That’s not just good advise for liberals……
    God Bless you all. And President Trump as well.

    • Wirecutter says:

      So if only 12-18% results in an arrest, then 82-88% are being detained, searched and fucked with for no reason whatsoever.
      Sorry, but you’ll have to better than that to justify that bullshit. And I don’t give a fuck if a liberal court upheld it, the 4th Amendment very plainly states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Notice that it does not mention that any cop can pull you over or aside to search you just because he doesn’t like your looks or because you’re in a shitty neighborhood.
      All the Supreme Court ruling does is give even more power to the police over us – you know, the people they’re supposed to be (key word here) serving.

      • crazyeighter says:

        I’m just curious about where the concept of someone going about their business, but armed for self defense, is committing a crime.

      • Rob says:

        The 4th Amendment? That amendment stared drifting away when the court ok’d civil asset forfeiture on the cops say so.

        Back in 2014 a paper reported over 1,000 seizures of $20 or less in DC.

  13. Goeta von Berlichingen says:

    Wirecutter, I appreciate your passion.

    Argue with me all you want (although I have no horse in this race), but the SC in 1968 ruled it constitutional (once again, under certain restrictions). It has long been established under English Common Law…upon which our law is based.

    This statement of yours “So if only 12-18% results in an arrest, then 82-88% are being detained, searched and fucked with for no reason whatsoever.” ignores a couple facts: Stop and frisk is really stop, QUESTION, and frisk only when the answers or other actions lead to further suspicions. Probable cause is still required just to stop someone. So, most people who are stopped aren’t frisked at all.
    I suggest you take the time to understand the law and the reasoning and restrictions associated with it before opining on its constitutionality if you don’t want someone else with a clearer picture and more info to push back.
    I only commented because I don’t like it when anybody argues from passion and not reason.
    Finally, to maintain that “any cop can pull you over or aside to search you just because he doesn’t like your looks or because you’re in a shitty neighborhood” is only to display ignorance of the actual law and what it allows.
    I do realize that it can be abused. That is true of many laws. That’s why we have courts. Don’t give a fuck what the courts say? They have the same feeling about you…and they can do something about it,

    No crime in challenging one’s own beliefs by actually educating yourself. May not change your mind, but at least you’ll be able to argue your position intelligently.
    I recommend it to everyone. Especially to liberals.

    • Wirecutter says:

      Based on and follows are two different things.
      Again, the 4th Amendment states very clearly when somebody can be searched. I don’t see any wiggle room there at all and any justice that does is ignorant of not only the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the writings of our Founding Fathers concerning them.
      As far as questioning goes, don’t the police have to have a reason to detain and question somebody? If they can’t pull me over in my truck and detain me without probable cause, why can they do it to somebody walking down the sidewalk? Or can they stop and jack up anybody they want to at any time? What’s to stop them from coming to YOUR house to search it just because their spidey sense tells them you’re up to something?

      But then again, we’re talking about a Supreme Court who’s opinions and rulings change, depending on who’s sitting on it at the time. If they can twist and warp the rest of our Civil Rights, why not the Fourth, right?
      It’s funny, but cops scream and bitch about any SC rulings that prevent them from being heavy handed and overbearing to the People they’re supposed to be serving (there’s that pesky word again), but fully support the same courts that allow them free rein to do whatever they want.

  14. Goetz von Berlichingen says:

    “I don’t see any wiggle room there at all and any justice that does is ignorant of not only the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the writings of our Founding Fathers concerning them.”

    Gee, that’s surprising, given your years of academic study of the law. ( I snark because I love).

    Cops can indeed pull you over if they think you are doing something suspicious, probable cause is not required> I was arrested in 1970 for marijuana possession because I was a teenager in a car with 2 others driving at night through a construction area 200 yds from my home. No traffic infraction, nada, Just in an area at night that had experienced some thefts of construction materials. That ‘reasonable suspicion’ was all that was required. And yes, I took it to court.

    To summarize, all the police need is a reasonable suspicion to stop and question you. If, while questioning, that reasonable suspicion leads to probable cause – they they can search you and your immediate area (i.e. truck). Based on their findings you may then be arrested.

    Your last paragraph? I agree completely.

    BTW, I was an MP in Heidelberg while you were in K-town.

    God Bless

    • Wirecutter says:

      The Bill of Rights is laid out simply enough that you don’t need years of academic study to understand them. Hell, years of academic study just encourages misinterpretation.

      Your first sentence in the 3rd paragraph: If they think you are doing something suspicious… simply walking down a street or standing on a street corner is not suspicious activity. Even looking in a cop’s direction with a worried eye isn’t doing something suspicious – it’s wondering if you’re going to get jacked up.

      Okay, we disagree. No big deal. I appreciate your civility.

      You might have known my brother-in-law. He was also an MP in Heidelberg about the same time, although I don’t know which kaserne. His name is Tim Clark.

  15. Goetz von Berlichingen says:

    :”simply walking down a street or standing on a street corner is not suspicious activity”

    Yes it can be, for example, if a crime has been reported in the area and you fit a description of the perp. Come on. you know that, right? And you read my actual arrest experience…that was just driving…but I was, legally, pulled over just because of where I was. You are old enough to know that many things, especially the law, are not straightforward. When I learn something that causes me to first think that “those people are idiots” I try to stop and educate myself on the reasons why it was done that way before going further. Keeps me humble(r) and I like being informed. Mostly I like being right…so I strive to challenge my beliefs. It makes my mind stronger, reaffirms my good beliefs and winnows out the false. Usually. I am not perfect.

    Heidelberg had 2 MP companies: the 536th and the 529th MP Company (Honor Guard). I was with the latter. I served on the security detail (bodyguard) for the CINCUSAREUR during the Baader-Meinhof terror wave. They exploded a bomb at Campbell Barracks (USAREUR HQ at the time) that killed 3 soldiers. I was with the first responders. Horrific.
    Did not know Tim.

    I visit everyday and love the blog. If you don’t mind, I’ll use someone else for legal opinions. But I am definitely coming to you for reloading tips. And I may follow your example and gtfo of California, as much as I love it here in Amador County.

    Civility begets civility in my book. I can be brutal when it’s warranted.

    Best regards
    Goetz

If your comment 'disappears', don't trip - it went to my trash folder and I will restore it when I moderate.