Stop and Frisk

[billvon 2,400]

>What's the problem with stop and frisk downtown on an ad hoc basis

"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."

(It's not in the Second Amendment so you may never have seen this before.)

[Gravitymaster 0]

billvon

>What's the problem with stop and frisk downtown on an ad hoc basis

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, (unless we think they have a scary gun in there)and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, (probable cause being that we think they might have a scary gun in there)supported by Oath or affirmation, (we think they might have a scary gun in there)and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."(we need to seize scary guns)

(It's not in the Second Amendment so you may never have seen this before.)

FIFY

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

>What's the problem with stop and frisk downtown on an ad hoc basis

"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."

(It's not in the Second Amendment so you may never have seen this before.)

Funny how you think the people applies to...well the people in that one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I am pretty sure I am not allowed to have RPG's and F-18s (armed of course)...unarmed they do me no good.

Ah, keep moving the goal posts and maybe one day you will win.

But your first point was that we will not let you have one.... Several of us do not care if you own one, and think you should be allowed - FAIL.

That didn't work for you, so you claimed you could not own one.
Well wrong again: http://www.autoweapons.com/photosn/photosfeb04/dd1-48rpg.html

FAIL

We have already shown you can in fact own an F18 - FAIL

Now, if you ask me.... I think they should be easier to own than a few handfuls

But the fact is that you are once again wrong.

Go fish.

[Bignugget 0]

"RUSSIAN RPG7d PARA. ----- A SELDOM SEEN LIVE RPG7d ......TAKE DOWN PARATROOPER MODEL. THE FIREARM IS IN CHOICE CONDITION AND COMPLETE.... THE RPG 7 OR 7d LIVE IS ALMOST NEVER OFFERED, COMPLETE AND ORIGINAL -- PURPORTED TO BE FROM LEBANON.... THERE IS ARABIC WRITING ON THE WEAPON WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO TRANSLATE TO "HEADQUARTERS COMPANY 2"....ITEM IS DATE CODED.... COMPLETE WITH RPG BACKPACK AND LEATHER GUN MUZZLE COVER.... THERE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LESS THEN A DOZEN RPG IN THE NFA REGISTRY --- SINCE NO MORE "SOUVENIRS" CAN BE BROUGHT INTO THE US AS PER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE, THESE ARE LIKELY THE LAST ONES TO BE SEEN. EMAIL FOR PRICE (DD1-48)

NOW AVAILABLE - RPG7 TRAINING ROCKET.... THESE ARE LIVE FIRING RPG7 TRAINERS MADE BY THE CZ GOVT ARSENAL.... THESE ROCKETS ARE LIVE FIRING WEAPONS WHICH USE A 7.62x39mm CARTRIDGE TO SIMULATE THE FIRING OF AN RPG.... THE TRAINER ROCKET IS A FIREARM BY ITSELF, NEEDING TO BE SHIPPED TO AN FFL AS A STANDARD FIREARM... TO OPERATE THIS TRAINER UNIT, UNLOCK THE ROCKET, COCK IT AND PLACE A 7.62x39mm ROUND IN THE CHAMBER....(ANY TYPE OF 7.62x39mm CARTRIDGE WILL FUNCTION - BLANK, LIVE BALL, TRACER OR INCENDIARY ROUND WILL WORK) ROCKET IS THEN SLID INTO THE RPG LAUNCHER, LAUNCHER IS THEN COCKED, AIMED THROUGH SITES OR OPTICS AND FIRED LIKE ANY OTHER FIREARM (IN A SAFE DOWN RANGE MANNER)... ROCKETS CAN BE USED OVER AND OVER BY JUST ADDING 7.62x39mm AMMO... THESE TRAINER ROCKETS HAVE BEEN LONG AWAITED TO BE IMPORTED INTO THE USA.... THE ROCKETS WILL ADD MUCH TO OWNING A RPG D.D. WEAPON.... THIS IS A SUPER ITEM WHETHER YOU HAVE A LIVE RPG, DEWAT OR A WEAPONS/AMMUNITION COLLECTION OF ANY TYPE.... AVAILABLE INDIVIDUALLY OR IN A SET OF THREE SHIPPED IN ORIGINAL CZ MILITARY TRANSIT CASE "


Well at least that is a bit encouraging. Less than 12 in the USA and they fire training rockets...I emailed them about being able to buy the actual RPG rockets....lets wait and see.


Where do I order the F-18s with missles and shit from?

Do you have a link?

[Bignugget 0]

"http://www.autoweapons.com/photosn/photosfeb04/dd1-48rpg.html

Hello,

Is this for sale?

I would like to purchase a rocket launcher with live HE rockets please. What is the total?

Thanks!'


Reply:

"21,900 with three trainers. No HE avail

Sent from my iPhone"

Damn!!

My reply:

"How do I get the HE rockets?"

His reply:

"CALL THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND ASK THEM"

I replied:

"I tried calling the state department to ask how to order the HE rockets but couldn't get through to anyone. Do you have a number or website to order those from?"



I am waiting for him to respond.

[billvon 2,400]

>FIFY

Ah, I see what you did there! You added the word "gun." That might work; perhaps conservatives will read it now.

[Gravitymaster 0]

billvon

>FIFY

Ah, I see what you did there! You added the word "gun." That might work; perhaps conservatives will read it now.

Nope, I put "seize scary guns" so left wingers will read it.

[Kennedy 0]

billvon

"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."

(It's not in the Second Amendment so you may never have seen this before.)

How would you react if people suggested reading the amendments you like in the same way that you read the one(s) you don't?

"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."

1 What is unreasonable? Why do you love crime? Help us make the world a better place. I don't think the stop n frisks aren't unreasonable, so no 4A violation. What?
2 Shall not be violated, well that sounds like shall not be infringed, but really we can violate/infringe all we want. "It's not unlimited."
3 We're not issuing using, or needing warrants, so PC, oaths, and specific targets of searches aren't really relevant here.

Would you like that interpretation of the fourth? Me either. It also ignores SCOTUS precedent (just like your 2A views). So stop pushing this sort of interpretation on the second.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[1888 0]

The statistics speak for themselves. While most individual cops probably aren't racist, the program certainly ends up that way.

I can't see how anyone who has looked at the numbers can come to a different conclusion, unless they're simply a contrarian on principle.

http://www.nyclu.org/.../stop-and-frisk-data


You ignore another set of statistics, the one that speaks of a dramatic drop in crime attributed to the stop & frisk. It's a tough call, but shouldn't we put the efforts into where if affects public safety? Not answering, just saying.

[DaVinci 0]

Ah, keep moving the goal posts and maybe one day you will win.

But your first point was that we will not let you have one.... Several of us do not care if you own one, and think you should be allowed - FAIL.

That didn't work for you, so you claimed you could not own one.
Well wrong again: http://www.autoweapons.com/photosn/photosfeb04/dd1-48rpg.html

FAIL

We have already shown you can in fact own an F18 - FAIL

Now, if you ask me.... I think they should be easier to own than a few handfuls

But the fact is that you are once again wrong.

Go fish.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

The statistics speak for themselves. While most individual cops probably aren't racist, the program certainly ends up that way.

If you are in an area where either 90% of the people in that area are one race. Or are in an area where 90% of the crimes are committed by one race.... Is it still racist if this were 90% that race?

BTW, I am against 'stop and frisk' and a whole bunch of other police activities.... But if 90% of a group is subjected to the equal percentage of stops.... How is that racist?

[OHCHUTE 0]

billvon

>What's the problem with stop and frisk downtown on an ad hoc basis

"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."

(It's not in the Second Amendment so you may never have seen this before.)

Here you go again slicing and dicing. So what is the difference in unreasonable searches at the airport and ad hoc searches in the hood? You seem selective in how you interpret the Constitution. What's good for people at the airport is not good for people on the street?

[sfzombie13 307]

wow. in israel, they don't just stop and search everyone, profile, or use expensive surveillance. they interview. i mean they ask questions, have conversations with passengers. and it works. if anyone knows how to stop terrorists, it would be the israelis. they've been in the middle of a hostile environment for the whole history of their country.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[weekender 0]

so it seems the judge might have been as biased as the police commissioner and Mayor Bloomberg said. she has been taken off the case and the court halted her changes.

"The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, “ran afoul” of the judiciary’s code of conduct by compromising the “appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.” The panel criticized how she had steered the lawsuit to her courtroom when it was filed nearly six years ago."


to note, this is not a conservative court. the Second Circuit panel includes Bill Clinton appointees Jose Cabranes and Barrington Parker, as well as John Walker. (reported in the WSJ)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/nyregion/court-blocks-stop-and-frisk-changes-for-new-york-police.html?src=me&_r=0

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante