Ok how about this? He killed Staten Island Chuck! er, Charlotte, whatever.
[Moderating]
septimus, adding editorial comment inside a quote box, as you did here with doorhinge’s post, is a violation of the board rules - even when clearly marked as an addition. Please avoid doing this in the future.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Oh my God!
He killed Chucky!
You bastard!
ROFL
(post shortened)
Maybe you should re-read the OP and the other posts in this thread that have suggested that police should be disciplined or fired. Or not. 
After running an anti-police campaign during 2013, and becoming mayor way back on Jan 1, 2014, the De Blasio ordered the city to drop the appeal of the “stop and frisk” case, in spite of the fact that the judge who issued the ruling was kicked off the case for bias. So, yes, the police were being disrespectful when they turned their backs to pictures of the De Blasio, and to the De Blasio himself because they believe the De Blasio has not supported the police during his time as mayor. The De Blasio made his choices and the NYPD have made theirs.
However, the De Blasio has not said that police were insubordinate or that police should be fired. It appears that the De Blasio has changed his mind about police and has been trying to make nice with the NYPD. Even De Blasio knows that he needs the police more than the NYPD needs De Blasio.
“Stop and Frisk” was struck down officially by the courts. It was ruled unconstitutional. You need a warrant or Probable Cause. It’s the law. Obey it. just like everyione else has to obey the law. Get over it.
Furthermore, Commissioner Bill Bratton has finally refuted union claims that there is no work slow down. He says there is a slowdown. Get over it.
As for who needs who, deBlasio was elected, and had made no secret he was looking to stop the Stop and Frisk, and would pursue reforms. Personally, I think “we” need him more than we need loose cannon “respeck mah authoritah” types running around armed.
Finally, if this is over the labor contract, blame your buddy Bloomberg. He kicked that can down the road and ran. And next, if the old Stop And Frisk and the old Broken Windows was so good, how is it that crime - REAL crime - is in decline now that both “practices” are not being pursued???
The judge, who was later removed from the case, said “Stop and Frisk” was unconstitutional. However -
The judge also ordered the NYPD to adopt a written policy specifying circumstances where stops are authorized; adopt a trial program requiring the use of body-worn cameras in one precinct in each of the city’s five boroughs; and to set up a community-based remedial process under a court-appointed facilitator.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/12/us-usa-newyork-police-idUSBRE97B0FK20130812
How clever of the judge, who was later kicked off the case, to order a written policy specifying circumstances where such stops are authorized and also say that those same stops were unconstitutional? And people wonder why that the judge was removed???
Your post is too short, lets fatten it up a bit with a little addendum from Wiki:
Interestingly, that’s the only time that’s ever been said of a doorhinge post.
The stops were unconstitutional, in that there were no warrants, and there was no probable cause, except to harass people. Read the fvcking fourth amendment of the US constitution.
**
Amendment IV
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.**
THERE is your law. If NYPD can not comply with the fvcking LAW as regards to probable cause and warramts, then maybe they do need a policy.
Bill Maher’s take:
Real Time with Bill Maher: NYPD Blues - January 9, 2015 (HBO) - YouTube
PMS and authoritarianism. Sounds about right. They aren’t being obeyed enough and worshipped enough. And they can’t handle ANY questions or criticism. If it’s so hard fvcking QUIT.
“When did NYPD start suffering from PMS? Seriously, if our deal with police is that we have to constantly reassure them how much we love them or else they throw a tantrum, we’re not supporting them, we’re dating them. Because right now honey, I mean officer, I’m confused. Yes you have a tough, dirty job, but you volunteered for it. It’s like a proctologist coming home every night and saying ‘I can’t believe I have to look at assholes all day!’”
…
“I’d believe it was just a few bad apples if in every police brutality video, we didn’t see half a dozen cops just standing around doing nothing or joining in. If cops where denouncing bad cops, they would gain my trust and respect, making their jobs easier in the future.”
It’s a good thing that it is written so simply otherwise we would need some sort preeminent court to interpret what that means in a couple of centuries worth of precedents.
Emphasis added. The NYC’s policy is still working its way thru the courts, so there is no definitive ruling on the constitutionality, however your analysis is simply wrong per the current jurisprudence on the 4th amendment. I would caution folks once again to have some humility in the layperson’s ability to derive the actual, current jurisprudence from the plain text of the legal document. (How does one interpret "Congress shall make no law…?)
Most of us Americans have been subject to “traffic stops” at one time or another, so we should all be familiar with this sort of thing, whether we agree with it or not.
I’m well aware of the DUI checkpoint sort of traffic stop. That is NOT quite the same as searching people FOR WALKING - when there was nothing to be “suspicious” of. Also, I’m not about to show “humility” just so Barney Fife or Eric Cartman can get their rocks off. Humility my ass.
You are missing the point. You claimed S&F was unconstitutional because it violated the 4th amendment re: no warrant and no probably cause. Terry stops, of which traffic cops are one type, also “violate” the 4th for those exact reasons, and yet are deemed OK by the SCOTUS. Now, as I said, whether NYC’s S&F is eventually declared unconstitutional is yet to be seen. However, this is not so simple as you are claiming. Hence the appeal to humility-- jurisprudence in rarely so simply as you are asserting.
As a textualist myself, I’d love to welcome you into the fold, but I’d bet dollars to a policeman’s favorite donuts that you’re a cafeteria textualist.
In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that a person could be seized by the police based on a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was involved in serious criminal conduct, and further, if there were also reasonable suspicion that the person stopped was “armed and dangerous,” the officer could frisk the suspect for the officer’s protection. See 392 U.S. 1, 27, 30 (1968). Over the past forty-five years, the power of police to stop and frisk has greatly expanded and now encompasses all suspected criminal activity, no matter how trivial, and under circumstances where the conduct observed may be fully consistent with innocence. See, e.g., United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274-75 (2002). Given the extremely broad grounds for stop-and-frisk, the large numbers of persons subjected to these stops, the wide discretion of police departments to decide where to deploy officers and whom to stop and frisk, and the disproportionate number of minorities subjected to these investigative detentions, it is no surprise that the Terry doctrine continues to be highly controversial as a question of constitutional law and as an aspect of the broader issue of effective and fair policing.
In Floyd v. City of New York, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that New York City’s stop-and-frisk practices violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. No. 08 Civ. 1034(SAS), 2013 WL 4046209, at *70-75 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2013). The court reached these conclusions on a full evidentiary record that included a statistical analysis of over 4.4 million stops in New York City from January 2004 to June 2012.
The repetitive use of “high crime area” and “furtive movements” as the basis for the stop led Dr. Fagan to conclude that officers were employing a routinized script in asserting reasonable suspicion. Id. In addition to the vague and patterned reasons for stops, the court noted that some stops were not recorded, that 36% of the 2009 stop forms did not identify a suspected crime, that “furtive movements” and “high crime area” (which were each marked in over 40% of the stops) were “negatively correlated” with a summons or arrest, and that only 12% of all stops resulted in an arrest or summons. Id. at *13, *19. On this basis, the court concluded that the number of stops without reasonable suspicion was significantly greater than the 200,000 impermissible stops identified by plaintiffs, Id. at *18-19, and that the City had a policy and custom of Fourth Amendment violations. Id. at *70
…NYCLU’s comprehensive report, which analyzes 12 years of stop-and-frisk data from NYPD records, debunks right-wing media’s claims that this controversial law enforcement tool was essential for public safety. From the report:
The NYPD often sought to justify the large number of stops on the grounds that the stop-and-frisk program was critically important to recovering guns and thus reducing shootings and murders. The NYPD’s data contradict this argument.
Between 2003 and 2011, annual stops increased dramatically, but gun recoveries, which were always a tiny percentage of stops, moved up and down and any increases were quite small. During that same time, the number of shooting victims remained largely flat and murders moved up and down. By contrast, in 2012 and 2013, recorded stops dropped dramatically. At the same time shootings and murders dropped dramatically. …
As The Washington Post explained, “to the extent that supporters have argued that stop-and-frisk makes cities safer, the above chart is a fair rebuttal.”
12 years of data from New York City suggest stop-and-frisk wasn’t that effective
In 2002, when Michael Bloomberg first took office as mayor of New York City, the controversial law enforcement policy known as “stop-and-frisk” led to 97,296 encounters on the city’s street. Police stopped — and sometimes frisked — pedestrians on any number of suspicious grounds: Their movements seemed “furtive,” as if they were casing a victim, acting as a lookout, or selling drugs. They seemed to be carrying a suspicious object, or sporting a suspicious bulge.
Over the years, the tactic would become more prevalent — and common far beyond New York — as the public outcry over its use rose. By 2011, the New York Police Department that many cities tried to copy conducted 685,724 stops, the peak before a bitter legal tussle and a new mayoral race would begin to scale back the practice:
This picture comes from a New York Civil Liberties Union report released Wednesday that the group is framing as a comprehensive account of stop-and-frisk during the Bloomberg years. During the mayor’s 12-year tenure, police department data show that officers made more than 5 million stops, a quarter of them of young black men who made up just 1.9 percent of the city’s population.
The NYCLU report documents the racial imbalance that has made the policy so divisive in New York and other cities where the practice has contributed to animosity between minority communities and law enforcement. But the ACLU accounting also points to other data that undermine the rationale for stop-and-frisk: It yielded few weapons when officials justified the policy as a way to reduce shootings and recover guns; in more than 5 million stops, police recovered a gun less than 0.02 percent of the time. And as the NYPD ramped up the number of stops, shootings and murders in the city did not appear to correspondingly decline:
Since new New York Mayor Bill de Blasio ran — and won — on reforming the practice, the city has reached a legal settlement to work with a court-appointed monitor on revising the policy (the city’s police unions were recently shot down in the their attempt to scuttle it). Now that police tactics in minority communities are under national scrutiny once again, this data reaffirms that some of the tactics that antagonize residents may not be all that valuable anyway.
If you mean I will use data or “learned opinions” that support my view, including court cases, and the Constitution itself, damn right.
So, you are admitting you were wrong since that’s exactly what you didn’t do?
In Floyd v. City of New York, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that New York City’s stop-and-frisk practices violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments