jcd11235 0 #26 July 25, 2008 Quote Actually, conservatives LIKE the constitution as written and intended, not like the living breathing changing constitution the libs want Yeah, because the framers never intended it to be a living, breathing, changing document that could stand the test of changing times. They didn't really mean anything by Article 5, did they? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 July 25, 2008 QuoteWhile we are on the topic, being placed in handcuffs does not mean you are under arrest, and if you are placed in handcuffs and then set free, it does not mean the officer is just harrassing you. might want to think of what the word arrest means. Certainly you're not going where you want to go. If I'm not getting paid for kinky games, the handcuffs better be on me for a good reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #28 July 25, 2008 QuoteIf you were black and and black friends, you'd probably get tired of being stopped (at gunpoint) all the time just because some other black people did bad things. And every once in a while, the cops seem to shoot someone a few dozen times - fearing for your life tends to make you dislike the source of the fear. If you truly believe this garbage, then you are beyond my help. And you are in need of serious help. QuoteAnd I'm sure you believe in the right to self defense, even if NYC does not. But someone carrying a handgun knows that being discovered by the cops will be bad for them, even if they're not criminally oriented. No carry is the law in NYC. If you don't like it, move or vote someone in to change it or don't carry. I chose Option A, and now live comfortably in a state that issues CCWs as readily as driver's licenses. Carrying in NYC is against the law (unless you're rich and famous enough to get a permit). Therefore, you can't being carrying and not be "criminally oriented." Quote(A bit of a sidebar, but in the aftermath of Heller I don't recall reading any intent to sue NY for their effective gun ban. Why?) The Heller case was about possession of a handgun in the home. It was not about concealed carry. New York, as far as I know, doesn't ban the possession of firearms in the home, they require it be registered. They don't even completely ban carrying concealed. The law there is that you can only carry if you have a permit or a badge, and they don't issue many permits. Washington DC aid it was illegal to possess a firearm in the home that wasn't registered, and they weren't allowing people to register. Hence, an effective ban. Right now, rights advocates are going after Chicago and surrounding towns, San Francisco, and Washington DC. Yes, they are still fighting DC because DC is not complying with the Heller ruling.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #29 July 25, 2008 Quote Quote "I'll take nonsensical verse and mythical beasts for $100 Alex!" As most of us knew you would Alright, fair enough. I know there's a difference in philosophical theory but you're hard pressed to find a conservative these days. They're still suffering from the hangover from their legislative excesses and still have yet to divorce themselves fully from the radical extremist wing of the Republican party that still holds significant influence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #30 July 25, 2008 QuoteYeah, because the framers never intended it to be a living, breathing, changing document that could stand the test of changing times. If by living breathing changing document, you meant one that can be changed by a set out amendment process, then yes they did. If you mean one that can be read to mean anything you want it to me, then no, they did not.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #31 July 25, 2008 Quote Quote Quote "I'll take nonsensical verse and mythical beasts for $100 Alex!" As most of us knew you would Alright, fair enough. I know there's a difference in philosophical theory but you're hard pressed to find a conservative these days. They're still suffering from the hangover from their legislative excesses and still have yet to divorce themselves fully from the radical extremist wing of the Republican party that still holds significant influence. No, there are many out there (they are not very vocal as a group) and if a conservative canidate was runnin they would win (as Regan did) hands down. There are no conservative leaders in the Republican party today sad to say"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #32 July 25, 2008 Quote (as Regan did) Dude, edit quick! You know they're reading our mail and they're surely going to yank your card for that one Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #33 July 25, 2008 Quote… being placed in handcuffs does not mean you are under arrest … arrest, n. 1. A seizure or forcible restraint. 2. The taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, esp. in response to a criminal charge. Black's Law Dictionary 7eMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #34 July 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteYeah, because the framers never intended it to be a living, breathing, changing document that could stand the test of changing times. If by living breathing changing document, you meant one that can be changed by a set out amendment process, then yes they did. If you mean one that can be read to mean anything you want it to me, then no, they did not. Are you implying that they did not intend for the judicial branch to have the authority to interpret laws, including the Constitution?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #35 July 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhile we are on the topic, being placed in handcuffs does not mean you are under arrest, and if you are placed in handcuffs and then set free, it does not mean the officer is just harrassing you. might want to think of what the word arrest means. Certainly you're not going where you want to go. If I'm not getting paid for kinky games, the handcuffs better be on me for a good reason. Let me give you an example. Officers respond to a 911 call about trespassing at a small strip mall, the location of an open air drug market, prior violent calls, and overall a problem location. The caller mentions a black male in a white t-shirt and black pants, and says the trespasser has been told before never to come back, and that he has been known to carry weapons, then hangs up. Officers respond. When officers arrive, they see a group of six or seven males and females under a tree frequented by drug dealers/buyers. One of them is a black male wearing a white t shirt and black pants, who looks nervous that the police pulled up and are walking towards the group. This male waits to see what the officers are doing, but when they get close, he starts to walk off. Officers tell him to stop and ask him his name. He begins shouting about being harrassed and demands to know what the officers want. Officers tel him not o reach for his waist or pockets. One officer moves behind and to the side to trespasser to prevent flight and see the other hand. Officer tells him they are investigating a 911 complaint and again tell him they need to know his name. The rest of the group has moved off at this point. The male repeats that he ain't doin nothin wrong, and refuses to stand still. He also continues to move his hands near his waist and his pockets. Based on his suspicious movements, his refusal to cooperate, the possible presence of a weapon, officers tell hiim not to move, to place his hands on his head. When one officers moves up to firsk the individual, he moves his hands and begins to turn to face the officer. Officers at this point take his arms and place him into handcuffs. The rest of the story is that this was not the male they were called about and a gun was recovered from another male of similar description a few blocks over, but because of his actions, he was handcuffed during detention for everyones safety. The end result is that he was not cited or arrested. Now think about how much easier this could have gone if he just said "My name is _______ and I'm waiting for a bus" when officers asked. I'm not say he had to do that, just that everyone's day would've been easier if he had.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #36 July 25, 2008 So the police in NY have reasonable cause each and every time they stop and frisk someone? If they do, I have my doubts, I'm all for it it. However, I will not stand for police to stop and frisk citizens who are doing nothing suspicious just because they happen to be in the wrong neighborhood and/or the wrong race.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #37 July 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteIf you were black and and black friends, you'd probably get tired of being stopped (at gunpoint) all the time just because some other black people did bad things. And every once in a while, the cops seem to shoot someone a few dozen times - fearing for your life tends to make you dislike the source of the fear. If you truly believe this garbage, then you are beyond my help. And you are in need of serious help. I see your ability to understand complaints about profiling is nonexistent. BTW, NYC's permit system is pretty much like CA's CCW permit system - in theory you can own guns, but hardly practical. "In New York, handguns are permitted, but the licensing process is expensive and lengthy. Handgun owners must pay a fee of more than $1,200 a decade. Getting a license can take more than six months. Those obstacles violate a constitutional right to keep a firearm, gun rights lawyers say, though the city has said it thinks the laws pass constitutional muster." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #38 July 25, 2008 QuoteQuote… being placed in handcuffs does not mean you are under arrest… arrest, n. 1. A seizure or forcible restraint. 2. The taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, esp. in response to a criminal charge. Black's Law Dictionary 7e Educate yourself. Handcuffs can be used during an investigative detention if reasonable. It happens on a daily basis. edit: for jcd's poor formattingwitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 July 25, 2008 QuoteSo the police in NY have reasonable cause each and every time they stop and frisk someone? sounds like a good reason to stick those little pencams on their shoulders, like every good soldier in a semi futuristic sci fi movie. But we both know that Kennedy's example is contrived and certainly doesn't explain every DWB (driving while black) traffic stop. Reality - cops use a call to justify going on fishing expeditions, hassling all in their path. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #40 July 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote… being placed in handcuffs does not mean you are under arrest… arrest, n. 1. A seizure or forcible restraint. 2. The taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, esp. in response to a criminal charge. Black's Law Dictionary 7e Educate yourself. Handcuffs can be used during an investigative detention if reasonable. It happens on a daily basis. It's not a question of can the police fuck with you and then say, move along. That's been clearly established. But doesn't change the fact that you're being detained, being 'arrested.' Reread defintion 1. And as this thread is really all about, cops doing what they can do doesn't lead to them being appreciated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #41 July 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat funny to me is that all the people claiming racism are ignoring where the stops take place and where the crime is happening... Excellent post, Kennedy. The liberals will probably insist that little old white ladies be stopped and frisked in order to even up the racial statistics, just like they do at airports. That's the only way to make it "fair". Maybe I'm reading into this too much but for clarification...Are you saying it's ok for the police to stop and search citizens for no reason other than they're in the wrong neighborhood? Not at all, but again you need to be clear about the difference between a search and a frisk. Officers can talk to anyone they want any time they want. If they order a person to stay, or frisk without consent, they need reasonable suspicion. If they search without consent, they need a warrant (or they can search if they make an arrest)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #42 July 25, 2008 QuoteIt's not a question of can the police fuck with you and then say, move along. That's been clearly established. You really need some help. QuoteBut doesn't change the fact that you're being detained, being 'arrested.' Reread defintion 1. And as this thread is really all about, cops doing what they can do doesn't lead to them being appreciated. And regardless of what Black Law has to say, current court decisions state that being handcuffed does not automatically constitute a custodial arrest. If you bothered to educate yourself, you'd see that being detained is very different from being arrested.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #43 July 25, 2008 QuoteEducate yourself. Handcuffs can be used during an investigative detention if reasonable. It happens on a daily basis. Yes, there is a fairly narrow set of circumstances in which one can be detained without being arrested. However, generally, one is either under arrest or free to go.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #44 July 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat funny to me is that all the people claiming racism are ignoring where the stops take place and where the crime is happening... Excellent post, Kennedy. The liberals will probably insist that little old white ladies be stopped and frisked in order to even up the racial statistics, just like they do at airports. That's the only way to make it "fair". Maybe I'm reading into this too much but for clarification...Are you saying it's ok for the police to stop and search citizens for no reason other than they're in the wrong neighborhood? Not at all, but again you need to be clear about the difference between a search and a frisk. Officers can talk to anyone they want any time they want. If they order a person to stay, or frisk without consent, they need reasonable suspicion. If they search without consent, they need a warrant (or they can search if they make an arrest) I understand the difference thanks to the link you provided earlier. I already addressed it. You're a bit behind.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #45 July 25, 2008 Quote Officers can talk to anyone they want any time they want. If they order a person to stay, or frisk without consent, they need reasonable suspicion. If they search without consent, they need a warrant (or they can search if they make an arrest) So really they just need a gun. Check! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #46 July 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteSo the police in NY have reasonable cause each and every time they stop and frisk someone? sounds like a good reason to stick those little pencams on their shoulders, like every good soldier in a semi futuristic sci fi movie. But we both know that Kennedy's example is contrived and certainly doesn't explain every DWB (driving while black) traffic stop. Reality - cops use a call to justify going on fishing expeditions, hassling all in their path. The fact that they call it "stop and frisk" tells me they are stopping them to specifically frisk them in hopes of finding an illegal weapon. They're not frisking them for their own safety. THAT I have a problem with.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #47 July 25, 2008 Quote The article clearly states that the NY Civil Liberties Union are cop haters. I would sincerely like to know why is that so. How is that a ridiculous statement? Elvis has left the building. Than' you ver' much, ya'll Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #48 July 25, 2008 Quote Officers can talk to anyone they want any time they want. If they order a person to stay, or frisk without consent, they need reasonable suspicion. If they search without consent, they need a warrant (or they can search if they make an arrest) Pretty much sounds like a police state we are living in.. Whatever happened to you dont have anything to worry about if you are not doing anything wrong??? Isnt that the typical mantra.???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #49 July 26, 2008 What do you all think of BHO's statement in CO this month were he thinks we need a police Dept as big and as well financed as the current military?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #50 July 26, 2008 QuoteWhat do you all think of BHO's statement in CO this month were he thinks we need a police Dept as big and as well financed as the current military? I don't know - do you have a quotation for this statement? BTW, since the cops are generally organized and funded at the city and county level, is the President relevant? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
