#PhilandoCastle Minneosta Police Shoot Black Motorist 7/7 Video #FalconHeightsshooting

[Hangover]

Why not give police rubber bullets? Those hurt and can stop anyone not on bath salts...even then prob gotta be like 300 lbs

[WVU]

Obama just gave one of his better speeches about this.

Agreed.

[IAG]

Something is happening in Dallas.

 

 

Edit...looks like Cop scooped me again.

[Cop]

Something is happening in Dallas.

 

 

Edit...looks like Cop scooped me again.

Haha

[sports j]

I wonder if the cops would treat Zimmerman this way highly unlikely.

[barman]

Answer me this simple question because you just aren't understanding what I'm saying.

 

Can a NYPD stop a citizen he/she believes may have committed a crime and frisk that person?

 

A simple yes or no will do. Thanks.

your question directed at Timely, allow me to respond

 

YES - You have described Reasonable Cause for a short term detainmwnt in which case Terry v Ohio permits the officer to do a patdown in order to determine if a weapon is possesed.

 

They cannot, however order the detainee to empty their pockets -- an extremely common tactic of NYPD -unless they place the person under arrest.

 

The 'Stop n Frisk' program employed by NYPD for well over a decade did not require officers to articulate Reasonable Cause for either a patdown or for ordering empty pockets. Thus, it is a form of illegal detention and a related illegal search.

 

If police lack reasonable causecto detain/patdown a citizen, that citizen is within their rights to ignore conversation w police and if they wish - to leave the scene immediately.

 

The SCOTUS has also ruled that police may demand a citizen identify themselves, but unless that person is operating a motor vehicle, no presentation of 'valid ID' is not legally mandated

[barman]

So, what you're saying is you're just confused then. The 4th Amendment has always allowed for stop and frisk even in NY. What happened was a person filed a lawsuit saying stop and frisk is unconstitutional based on race so it's a clarification of an existing statute that''s never changed.

 

Do you understand now? Stop and frisk, as allowed under the 4th Amendment, has never been implemented or rescinded in NYC following implementation of the 4th Amendment.

Respectfully this is inaccurate for the reasons I stated in my previous two posts.

 

Stop n Frisk bypassed Reasonable Cause and that was the foundation for the federal lawsuit and subsequent ruling that ordered the NYPD to immediately desist w the policy.

 

The racial disparities were absolutely an element of the prevalent complaint but the federal ruling was in response to the illegal detention/patdown, not a response to the racial disparities in it's implementatioj

[barman]

So, if stop and frisk in NEW YORK was ruled unconstitutional because it was discriminatory (your words) there should be no current stop and frisk activities taking place right now correct? There were zero last month?

 

These are your words not mine.

TIMELY is doing a reasonable job articulating the matter at hand, but perhaps unwittingly overlooking your valid observation Enfuego that police are still legally affecting stops and patdowns. But those stops upon examination are in fact legal "Terry patdowns" because the officers if challenged can articulate a Reasonable Cause for the patdown.

 

Such stops are utterly distinctive from the aforementioned Stop n Frisk encounters of the past 10-12 years.

 

As the federal ruling stated, Stop nFrisk lacked the requisite Reasonable Cause, thus making them "a violation of the 4th Amendment which protects against UNreasonable searches"

 

If and when police can cite Reasonable Cause the subsequent search is NOT in violation of the 4th Amendment and such legal searches are then reflected in NYPD statistics as both legal stops and also legal patdowns.

 

Requiring the NYPD to clearly articulate legally mandated Reasonable Cause is why the current stats for Stopping and Frisking a citizen are reduced by almost 90%. It by no means forces them to cease all Stops and Patdowns. It merely forces them to respect the 4th Amendment - something they were ignoring with incredible impunity for a decade and a half

[barman]

And I'll take this post as your acknowledgement that stop and frisk, which has been in place since the founding of our nation, has never been rule unconstitutional in NYC at any time. You're just confused.

Actually, amigo - you are the confused one but it's mainly semantical.

 

Yes, Police have legally been able to "stop n patdown (aka frisk)" without legal complaint since the SCOTUS ruling in Terry v Ohio 1969 IF AND ONLY IF the officer could articulate Reasonable Cause to believe a crime was being commited.

 

But the NYPD policy, specifically titled "Stop n Frisk", begun under Guliani and continued under Bloomberg ordered police to very openly ignore the need for Reasonable Cause and affect stops and frisks anytime and anywhere they wished - to the tune of approximately 600,000 such illegal stops/frisks per year for almost 15 years.

[barman]

The motivation repeatedly cited by NYPD brass (as well as both mayors) was that even though the stops did not initiate based on a Reasonable Cause, the stops as a whole identified an average of about 60,000 people a year (just under 10% of those stopped overall) who in fact had some kind of illegal contrband in their possession.

 

"We took 60,000 CRIMINALS OFF THE STREET!!" was the recurring mantra, but sadly the methods employed were nonetheless wholly illegal, thus the eventual successful federal lawsuit and rulings

[Enfuego]

Actually, amigo - you are the confused one but it's mainly semantical.

 

Yes, Police have legally been able to "stop n patdown (aka frisk)" without legal complaint since the SCOTUS ruling in Terry v Ohio 1969 IF AND ONLY IF the officer could articulate Reasonable Cause to believe a crime was being commited.

 

But the NYPD policy, specifically titled "Stop n Frisk", begun under Guliani and continued under Bloomberg ordered police to very openly ignore the need for Reasonable Cause and affect stops and frisks anytime and anywhere they wished - to the tune of approximately 600,000 such illegal stops/frisks per year for almost 15 years.

 

I'm not confused in the least bit.  TH is doing a bad job of articulating his position.  I agree with all you're saying.  My only point is stop and frisk, as allowed by Terry v Ohio has never been discontinued.  The NYPD took it too far with their spinoff policy of Terry v Ohio hence the reason it was ruled unconstitutional which it should've been.  

[Gabe]

This cop looks very guilty. This is a bad one

[Cop]

Two more innocent blacks killed by cops

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/10/man-looking-for-stolen-horse-fatally-shot-after-waving-gun-at-houston-cops.html

 

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/10/off-duty-st-louis-county-officer-kills-man-breaking-into-home.html

[barman]

Already covered. If anyone here was honestly interested, there could be a single thread Topic created Police Kill Civilians and it would receive an average of three fresh entries every 24 hours. Many would certainly qualify as Justified to even the most prejudiced eyes, but there would be hundreds with very dubious narratives

[IAG]

Diamond live on the View....looks different. Must have gotten a weave.

[BranchDavidian]

Kinda confusing here.  It's been a few days.  The video is out and the girl is on TV doing interviews.  I've only seen one article, posted early in this thread, dealing with the cops side of the story. 

I wonder why the cop has not given his reason for shooting.  The liberal media is showing the crying girlfriend alongside family photos of the victim holding his daughter with background music designed to produce sympathy.  You would think that the police have learned to counter a false narrative as quickly as possible in order to slow down any violence caused by misinformation.

 

Beginning to look like the cop may not have a good story.

[trytrytry]

branch they have a bit  through the lawyer.  no surprise on the concept here.  

 

 

 

A St. Anthony police officer who killed a black driver reacted to the man’s gun, not his race, his attorney said Saturday, giving the most detailed account so far of why the officer drew his own weapon.

 

St. Anthony police officer Jeronimo Yanez was reacting to “the presence of that gun and the display of that gun” when he opened fire on Philando Castile, Minneapolis attorney Thomas Kelly told the Associated Press. He declined to elaborate on how Castile displayed the weapon or what led up to the deadly traffic stop.