Trump wants national stop-and-frisk

[decedent]

Trump continues his unconstitutional attacks on personal freedoms.

Trump said he'd implement a nationwide stop-and-frisk policy to deal with crime. This is a program where police stop people on the street and frisk them.

Trump isn't establishment -- he's far worse.


Donald Trump said in an interview slated to air Wednesday night that he would implement nationwide stop-and-frisk practices — even though the use of such policing tactics in New York City was ruled unconstitutional in 2013.

"I would do stop and frisk. I think you have to. We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well and you have to be proactive," Trump said on Fox News Channel's "Hannity" program, according a partial transcript of the interview released by the network.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-implement-nationwide-stop-frisk-policing-article-1.2801136

[del]

i'm sure it will be administered in a fair, evenhanded manner

if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about

if we can't stop and frisk, the terrorists win

[Cigar]

Kinda Funny how that didn't come up in front of Black Audance today ... :laugh:

I guess it's be to bring it up in Front of a room fulll of White screaming supporters. :grin:

Coward :tongue:

[Bethere]

Trump continues his unconstitutional attacks on personal freedoms.

Trump said he'd implement a nationwide stop-and-frisk policy to deal with crime. This is a program where police stop people on the street and frisk them.

Trump isn't establishment -- he's far worse.

It also shows his lack of understanding of what a president actually does. There is no national police force. He has no direct authority over local ones.

[Subdermal]

Trump continues his unconstitutional attacks on personal freedoms.

Trump said he'd implement a nationwide stop-and-frisk policy to deal with crime. This is a program where police stop people on the street and frisk them.

Trump isn't establishment -- he's far worse.

Hyperbole. There had always been 'stop and frisk', as it is has NEVER been without probable cause. Your leftist clown DiBlasio ceased the process in NY, and crime spiked - nearly immediately - 13%.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it for increased intelligence.

[Subdermal]

It also shows his lack of understanding of what a president actually does. There is no national police force. He has no direct authority over local ones.

That's interesting, since your buddy Obama is on record wanting a National Police Force. In fact, it's a huge reason why he's pushing this violence narrative and why he wants the Justice Department investigating all cases of death at the hands of a cop, instead of allowing local authorities - IA - to continue to do the job.

[Cigar]

Notice there no link to this National Ploice Force

[del]

Hyperbole. There had always been 'stop and frisk', as it is has NEVER been without probable cause. Your leftist clown DiBlasio ceased the process in NY, and crime spiked - nearly immediately - 13%.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it for increased intelligence.


ah, derpie, you never disappoint


In a historic ruling on August 12, 2013, following a nine-week trial, a federal judge found the New York City Police Department liable for a pattern and practice of racial profiling and unconstitutional stops. Under a new administration, the City agreed to drop its appeal and begin the joint remedial process ordered by the court. After attempts by the police unions to derail the process, the United States Court of Appeals at last allowed the City to officially withdraw its appeal in October 2014, and the joint reform process – in which all stakeholders, from community groups to the NYPD, come together to agree on solutions – is being mapped out.

The Floyd case stems from CCR's landmark racial profiling case, Daniels, et al. v. City of New York, et al. (http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/past-cases/daniels,-et-al.-v.-city-new-york), which led to the disbanding of the infamous Street Crime Unit and a settlement with the City in 2003. The Daniels settlement agreement required the NYPD to maintain a written racial profiling policy that complies with the United States and New York State constitutions and to provide stop-and-frisk data to CCR on a quarterly basis from 2003 through 2007. However, an analysis of the data revealed that the NYPD had continued to enagage in suspicionless and racially pretextual stop and frisks, and so CCR filed Floyd.
Floyd focuses not only on the lack of any reasonable suspicion to make these stops, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but also on the obvious racial disparities in who is stopped and searched by the NYPD – approximately 85 percent of those stopped are Black and Latino, even though these two groups make up only 52 percent of the city’s population – which constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A landmark case, Floyd continues CCR’s founding tradition of working with grassroots groups and directly affected communities to fight for racial justice.


https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/floyd-et-al-v-city-new-york-et-al

probably a commie, activist judge, right, derpster?

[Captain Obvious]

Kinda Funny how that didn't come up in front of Black Audance today ... :laugh:

I guess it's be to bring it up in Front of a room fulll of White screaming supporters. :grin:

Coward :tongue:

Are you functionally retarded?

[Captain Obvious]

Notice there no link to this National Ploice Force

National what?

[Captain Obvious]

Hyperbole. There had always been 'stop and frisk', as it is has NEVER been without probable cause. Your leftist clown DiBlasio ceased the process in NY, and crime spiked - nearly immediately - 13%.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it for increased intelligence.

What was the crime rate on Wall Street (like Wells Fargo) and how many suits were stopped and frisked?

I'll wait for it.

[Subdermal]

Notice there no link to this National Ploice Force

:facepalm:

[Bethere]

That's interesting, since your buddy Obama is on record wanting a National Police Force. In fact, it's a huge reason why he's pushing this violence narrative and why he wants the Justice Department investigating all cases of death at the hands of a cop, instead of allowing local authorities - IA - to continue to do the job.http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/

You are such a good time, Republican!

[decedent]

Hyperbole. There had always been 'stop and frisk', as it is has NEVER been without probable cause. Your leftist clown DiBlasio ceased the process in NY, and crime spiked - nearly immediately - 13%.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it for increased intelligence.

I bet you hate the Patriot Act, big government, tyranny, and high taxation.

[Subdermal]

What was the crime rate on Wall Street (like Wells Fargo) and how many suits were stopped and frisked?

I'll wait for it.

Not sure your point. Stop and frisk is a strategy which can only assist in prevention of violent crime, not white collar crime. White collar divisions do audits and investigations to control white collar crime; it is their version of 'stop and frisk' - and again, only with probable cause.

[Captain Obvious]

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/

You are such a good time!

The last time I checked factcheck's fact checking it was a joke, most of their "checked facts" were opinion and hyperbole.

Unless they did a drastic turn-around in integrity, not a reliable source.

[Subdermal]

I bet you hate the Patriot Act, big government, tyranny, and high taxation.

And you don't?

Your brain is clearly wired to accept only binary processes.

:facepalm:

[Captain Obvious]

Not sure your point. Stop and frisk is a strategy which can only assist in prevention of violent crime, not white collar crime. White collar divisions do audits and investigations to control white collar crime; it is their version of 'stop and frisk' - and again, only with probable cause.

So money protects the liberties of only those who have it.

Gotcha

[Cigar]

And you don't?

Your brain is clearly wired to accept only binary processes.

:facepalm:

What type of process are you using now?

[decedent]

And you don't?

Your brain is clearly wired to accept only binary processes.

:facepalm:

I do. But I'm not voting for the guy who doesn't hide the fact that he wants a police state.

[OGIS]

It also shows his lack of understanding of what a president actually does. There is no national police force. He has no direct authority over local ones.

Yet.

[Subdermal]

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/

You are such a good time, Republican!

Factcheck?

:biglaugh:

It's lovely when supposedly unbiased sources are biased, just so you can claim that they aren't, amirite?

Things like the FBI and Justice and State Departments also come to mind.

You're a drawer full of socks, sock.

Obama's Nationalized Policing Plan (http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/02/obama-unveils-national-obamalaw-plan/)

[Cigar]

I do. But I'm not voting for the guy who doesn't hide the fact that he wants a police state.


The last thing an idiot like Trump needs is a Police States, considering he's breaking laws all the time.

[del]

What type of process are you using now?

null

[del]

Factcheck?

:biglaugh:

It's lovely when supposedly unbiased sources are biased, just so you can claim that they aren't, amirite?

Things like the FBI and Justice and State Departments also come to mind.

You're a drawer full of socks, sock.

Obama's Nationalized Policing Plan (http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/02/obama-unveils-national-obamalaw-plan/)


daily caller?

what's prison planet have to say?

[Subdermal]

I do. But I'm not voting for the guy who doesn't hide the fact that he wants a police stat.

Conversely, you voted for the guy who did - and I'm going to vote for the guy who intends to bring back policies to reverse stupid ideas you idiot leftists implemented which has spiked crime.

[del]

Conversely, you voted for the guy who did - and I'm going to vote for the guy who intends to bring back policies to reverse stupid ideas you idiot leftists implemented which has spiked crime.

damned libbies and their 4th amendment bullshit

go get em, derpster, go get em!

[Subdermal]

So money protects the liberties of only those who have it.

Gotcha

Why do I have argue two different points in order to address one? No one contests that money isn't protective.

That, however, doesn't mean that blue collar violent criminals should have their way merely because white collar criminals get away with crap.

Regardless: there are white collar convictions, and blue. Your point is illogical.

[Bethere]

Conversely, you voted for the guy who did - and I'm going to vote for the guy who intends to bring back policies to reverse stupid ideas you idiot leftists implemented which has spiked crime.

Of course you are! You are a registered Republican!

[Safety]

ah, derpie, you never disappoint




https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/floyd-et-al-v-city-new-york-et-al

probably a commie, activist judge, right, derpster?

He will blame it on English not being his first language. So much for personal accountability and all that...

[Cigar]

Don't forget, in a Police State we can't afford "Choakers" ... according to Donald J Trump. :laugh:

Maybe those people shouldn't be doing what they are doing ... Quote from Donald J Trump. :grin:

[OGIS]

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/

You are such a good time, Republican!

I think the key wordage in Obama's original statement (per the site): "...We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded..." is the point that the conservatives are swooning over. WTF does a "civilian national security force" have to do with the rest of that statement?

I'm a lib and *I* find it suspicious.

[decedent]

Conversely, you voted for the guy who did - and I'm going to vote for the guy who intends to bring back policies to reverse stupid ideas you idiot leftists implemented which has spiked crime.

So you're in favor of the thing that you didn't want Obama to do. Are you a Trump speech writer?

[OGIS]

Factcheck?

:biglaugh:

It's lovely when supposedly unbiased sources are biased, just so you can claim that they aren't, amirite?

Things like the FBI and Justice and State Departments also come to mind.

You're a drawer full of socks, sock.

Obama's Nationalized Policing Plan (http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/02/obama-unveils-national-obamalaw-plan/)

So... Daily Caller is an unbiased source? :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::rofl mao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:: roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflm ao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

[OGIS]

He will blame it on English not being his first language. So much for personal accountability and all that...

Are you suggesting he's one of those Russian paid trolls?

[Private Pickle]

Yeah....FUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK THHHHAAAAAATTTT!

[Private Pickle]

It also shows his lack of understanding of what a president actually does. There is no national police force. He has no direct authority over local ones.

Actually there is... The Department of Homeland Security is America's brown shirts.

[Private Pickle]

Hyperbole. There had always been 'stop and frisk', as it is has NEVER been without probable cause. Your leftist clown DiBlasio ceased the process in NY, and crime spiked - nearly immediately - 13%.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it for increased intelligence.

Unconstitutional.

[del]

Unconstitutional.

commie

[Private Pickle]

Not sure your point. Stop and frisk is a strategy which can only assist in prevention of violent crime, not white collar crime. White collar divisions do audits and investigations to control white collar crime; it is their version of 'stop and frisk' - and again, only with probable cause.

Unconstitutional.

[Private Pickle]

commie

Does it show?

[Captain Obvious]

Does it show?

You're just full of bulshevik

[Private Pickle]

You're just full of bulshevik

And apples!

[OGIS]

Actually there is... The Department of Homeland Security is America's brown shirts.

When Bush formed the TSA, I looked at the caliber of the people they were hiring and decided right then that Bush was creating the basis for a federal thug force. The last group of note to do this were the Nazi's (the Brownshirts were all essentially losers), but the tactic has been used throughout history: find a group of losers and elevate them to positions of better pay, and petty power over their betters. Their gratitude, and their realization that continued patronage depends on their loyalty, makes a good basis for any organized group of thugs.

[Private Pickle]

When Bush formed the TSA, I looked at the caliber of the people they were hiring and decided right then that Bush was creating the basis for a federal thug force. The tactic has been used throughout history: find a group of losers and elevate them to positions of better pay, and petty power over their betters. Their gratitude, and their realization that continued patronage depends on their loyalty, makes a good basis for any organized group of thugs.

Americans were so afraid they allowed themselves to be completely turned into subjects of the government. From the Patriot Act to the DHS. Then the government took it a step further and implemented a secret spy program collecting everything they possibly could on all American Citizens (without Snowden we would never have known) and then straight up lied about it.

We are far down the path and it will only take another 9-11 to push us over the ledge.

[Mac-7]

ah, derpie, you never disappoint




https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/floyd-et-al-v-city-new-york-et-al

probably a commie, activist judge, right, derpster?

Could be.

any judge appointed by clinton or obama is going to be a liberal activist.

even repubs like bush screw up.

the problem is that its a life appointment.

so these quacks never have to answer to the people

[Tahuyaman]

I can't trust either Trump or Clinton. Both seem to be power hungry, just in different ways.

Both of them seem to prefer federal government solutions for every problem.

[The Xl]

Trump unquestionably has authoritarian tendencies. This election is a complete cluster fuck.

[Dr. Who]

Trump unquestionably has authoritarian tendencies. This election is a complete cluster fuck.
Of course he does - that's how he runs his businesses - his way or the highway. That's just who he is. He has no hidden depths or even constitutional concerns. He, apparently, just wants to be America's CEO.

[Subdermal]

Of course you are! You are a registered Republican!

No, I'm not. You have a stupid fixation.

[Subdermal]

ah, derpie, you never disappoint




https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/floyd-et-al-v-city-new-york-et-al

probably a commie, activist judge, right, derpster?

Don't be an idiot, dull. Your article does not address what I wrote at all. It only addresses whether or not police were utilizing the ability to 'stop and frisk' properly or not.

You are about the most useless POS in this forum. Go step on ants.

[Subdermal]

Unconstitutional.

Probable cause is not unconstitutional.

[Cthulhu]

i'm sure it will be administered in a fair, evenhanded manner

if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about

if we can't stop and frisk, the terrorists win
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear....

You realize you're quoting a nazi right?



Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

[Dr. Who]

Probable cause is not unconstitutional.
It can also be highly subjective and fluid when it comes to stop and frisk. The profile of a criminal could also be the profile of a non-criminal kid that likes to wear FUBU clothing and hoodies. It could also comprise anyone who is black who drives a high-end vehicle and plays rap music. All manner of non-criminals were assaulted by stop and frisk based upon highly subjective criteria. The question is whether personal freedom is more important than catching all the bad guys? Programs like stop and frisk don't remain small. Eventually, they extend to everyone. Before you know it, you are showing your papers or you are being microchipped.

[del]

Don't be an idiot, dull. Your article does not address what I wrote at all. It only addresses whether or not police were utilizing the ability to 'stop and frisk' properly or not.

You are about the most useless POS in this forum. Go step on ants.

you really don't have the brains god gave a goat, do you?

ah, well

nmp

[del]

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear....

You realize you're quoting a nazi right?



Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.


you realize it's sarcasm, right?

[Cthulhu]

you realize it's sarcasm, right?
Well with a face like yours...

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

[del]

Well with a face like yours...

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

inscrutable, innit?

[OGIS]

i'm sure it will be administered in a fair, evenhanded manner

if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about

if we can't stop and frisk, the terrorists win


Nothing to hide, nothing to fear....

You realize you're quoting a nazi right?

You realize he was being heavily sarcastic, right?

[Captain Obvious]

Well with a face like yours...

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

del has a face for internet forums, so I'm told.

:biglaugh:

[del]

You realize he was being heavily sarcastic, right?

it's my face; it fools em all

:)

[Cthulhu]

You realize he was being heavily sarcastic, right?
Camel penis.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

[donttread]

Trump continues his unconstitutional attacks on personal freedoms.

Trump said he'd implement a nationwide stop-and-frisk policy to deal with crime. This is a program where police stop people on the street and frisk them.

Trump isn't establishment -- he's far worse.

Good, we need something that ridiculous to get the sheep reading the Constitution so they understand that 3/4 of what the feds do, they do without Constitutional authority.

[Newpublius]

ah, derpie, you never disappoint




https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/floyd-et-al-v-city-new-york-et-al

probably a commie, activist judge, right, derpster?

Of course NY's policy was called stop and frisk but its still a misnomer, the reasonable suspicion still absolutely needs to be present. What was unconstitutuonal was NY's method of applying stop and frisk of course.

On the subway, people's backpacks and the lole are actually subject to random search and THAT policy was upheld......

[Captain Obvious]

Camel penis.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8472/8084413740_a3a3ea3007.jpg

[nathanbforrest45]

So money protects the liberties of only those who have it.

Gotcha

You mean like Hillary Rodham Clinton?

[nathanbforrest45]

Why do I have argue two different points in order to address one? No one contests that money isn't protective.

That, however, doesn't mean that blue collar violent criminals should have their way merely because white collar criminals get away with crap.

Regardless: there are white collar convictions, and blue. Your point is illogical.

Leona Helmsley
Martha Stewart
Bernie Madoff
come to mind

[nathanbforrest45]

Unconstitutional.

Has it ever come before the Supreme Court for a final judgement?

[Private Pickle]

Probable cause is not unconstitutional.


The Stop-question-and-frisk program, or stop-and-frisk, in New York City (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City), is a practice of the New York City Police Department (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department) in which police officers stop and question a pedestrian, then frisk them for weapons and other contraband; this is what is known in other places in the United States as the Terry stop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City

Stop and Frisk requires no probable cause.

[Crepitus]

Factcheck?

:biglaugh:

It's lovely when supposedly unbiased sources are biased, just so you can claim that they aren't, amirite?

Things like the FBI and Justice and State Departments also come to mind.

You're a drawer full of socks, sock.

Obama's Nationalized Policing Plan (http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/02/obama-unveils-national-obamalaw-plan/)
You Republicans think all fact checking organizations are biased. Probably because they trip you up so often.

[Private Pickle]

Has it ever come before the Supreme Court for a final judgement?

Nope. Hasn't gone past the U.S. District Court.

[suds00]

besides deporting we will be frisking everyone.sounds like an authoritarian government not a democracy.

[DGUtley]

I'm against a national stop and frisk policy. This smacks of a "show me your papers" Nazi-Germany type thing. I'm against it, adamantly. Trump doesn't have the authority to impose this and I think the Courts wouldn't uphold it. I would refuse to show my identification to any police office b/c I don't have to - unless they suspect I've committed a crime or witnessed a crime (under Ohio law). Naturally, I get they have a tough job, but my rights are paramount to me (and should be to them). I would politely inquire whether they suspect that I've witnessed or committed a crime and remind them that under Ohio law I'm under no obligation to identify myself. My rights are my rights and we've gone far enough down surrendering those rights to the government.

[DGUtley]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City

Stop and Frisk requires no probable cause.

No, but it does require reasonable suspicion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

[Private Pickle]

No, but it does require reasonable suspicion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

A baggy coat can be construed as reasonable suspicion. We shouldn't be trying to find loopholes around our Constitutional Rights.

[DGUtley]

A baggy coat can be construed as reasonable suspicion. We shouldn't be trying to find loopholes around our Constitutional Rights.

Actually, no, a baggy coat cannot be construed as reasonable suspicion: State v. Jones, 835 P.2d 863 (1992)

Loopholes? That ship sailed nearly 50 years ago. I went on Westlaw and put in "Terry v. Ohio" and found 10,000 hits. The issue of what is "reasonable suspicion" is litigated frequently.

[Private Pickle]

Actually, no, a baggy coat cannot be construed as reasonable suspicion: State v. Jones, 835 P.2d 863 (1992)

Loopholes? That ship sailed nearly 50 years ago. I went on Westlaw and put in "Terry v. Ohio" and found 10,000 hits. The issue of what is "reasonable suspicion" is litigated frequently.

From the State vs. Jones:


The officers observed that defendant was wearing blue nylon sweat pants with a wide gold stripe on each leg, and a similar sweat shirt. One officer testified that the sweat pants were partially sagging down defendant's buttocks, but not so much as the officer had seen on some gang members. Defendant also wore a particular brand of athletic shoes one gang favors. Based on the area where the officers observed defendant, the fact that he was with a known gang member, defendant's apparel, and his manner of wearing it (the sagging), the officers determined that defendant was a gang member. Their training and experience taught them that gang members are often armed. Thus, in the interest of safety, the officers ordered defendant to assume the same stance as the avowed member and proceeded to frisk defendant.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1564607987360385313&q=State+v.+Jones,+835+P.2d+863&hl=en&as_sdt=4006&as_vis=1

[The Xl]

Probable cause is not unconstitutional.

Being a minority is not sufficient probably cause, which is more or less what it's based on.

[DGUtley]

From the State vs. Jones:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1564607987360385313&q=State+v.+Jones,+835+P.2d+863&hl=en&as_sdt=4006&as_vis=1

It was one factor that led them to the belief that he was a gang member, thereby with other factors giving them alleged reasonable suspicion that he might be armed.

1. Area.
2. Association with known gang member.
3. Apparel.
4. Manner that he was wearing it.

Reasonable suspicion that he was armed.

[Private Pickle]

It was one factor that led them to the belief that he was a gang member, thereby with other factors giving them alleged reasonable suspicion that he might be armed.

1. Area.
2. Association with known gang member.
3. Apparel.
4. Manner that he was wearing it.

Reasonable suspicion that he was armed.

So, if I walk down a street wearing baggy clothes down around my ass and I happen to know a gang member the cops have the right to trounce on the 4th? I disagree... And by the way that case only proved my point.

[DGUtley]

So, if I walk down a street wearing baggy clothes down around my ass and I happen to know a gang member the cops have the right to trounce on the 4th? I disagree... And by the way that case only proved my point.

If you walk down the street wearing gang-style baggy clothes, with known gang members in a high crime area, the Supreme Court tells us that the police have reasonable suspicion that you may be armed and therefore they may stop and frisk you.

BTW -- you didn't ask me if I agreed with the SC, I am merely attempting to say what the court has previously held. Please note also that this is not the result of in depth research but a cursory review based on a quick lexis or westlaw search. I suspect that you and I are probably on the same page on these rights issues.

[Private Pickle]

If you walk down the street wearing gang-style baggy clothes, with known gang members in a high crime area, the Supreme Court tells us that the police have reasonable suspicion that you may be armed and therefore they may stop and frisk you.

BTW -- you didn't ask me if I agreed with the SC, I am merely attempting to say what the court has previously held. Please note also that this is not the result of in depth research but a cursory review based on a quick lexis or westlaw search. I suspect that you and I are probably on the same page on these rights issues.

Sure but the fact is....baggy pants can and will = reasonable suspicion.

[DGUtley]

Sure but the fact is....baggy pants can and will = reasonable suspicion.

No, it's one factor. Baggy pants in and of itself will not provide reasonable suspicion.

[Private Pickle]

No, it's one factor. Baggy pants in and of itself will not provide reasonable suspicion.
Neither of us know that and something tells me "reasonable" suspicion including the clothes might include, "he looked suspicious", "he was acting suspicious", "my training and experience told me there was reasonable suspicion" but it will all stem from those baggy pants.

[DGUtley]

Neither of us know that and something tells me "reasonable" suspicion including the clothes might include, "he looked suspicious", "he was acting suspicious", "my training and experience told me there was reasonable suspicion" but it will all stem from those baggy pants.

Well, now you're talking pre-textual conduct. I don't do criminal work but I'd be shocked if it doesn't happen. The time to talk about that is with the courts not out on the street holding a gun or arguing with the police. You will have your day but you'll lose every fight in the street with the police. This incident resulted in an apology and advanced training for the subject law enforcement officers for failing to recognize the accosteds' rights:

http://greeneherald.com/article/local-police-dire-need-law-education-good-manners

[Private Pickle]

Well, now you're talking pre-textual conduct. I don't do criminal work but I'd be shocked if it doesn't happen. The time to talk about that is with the courts not out on the street holding a gun or arguing with the police. You will have your day but you'll lose every fight in the street with the police. This incident resulted in an apology and advanced training for the subject law enforcement officers for failing to recognize the accosteds' rights:

http://greeneherald.com/article/local-police-dire-need-law-education-good-manners

I'm not a fan of having to deal with it in the first place.

[DGUtley]

I'm not a fan of having to deal with it in the first place.

Who is?

[Private Pickle]

Who is?

The Government.

[kentucky]

If tyranny is so wonderful, why do people try to escape North Korea?

[Cthulhu]

If tyranny is so wonderful, why do people try to escape North Korea?Necromancer.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Captdon]

ah, derpie, you never disappoint




https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/floyd-et-al-v-city-new-york-et-al

probably a commie, activist judge, right, derpster?

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstitutional/ Never ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said it was legal as long as it was for probable cause. A different thing from what you are talking about.