The Republican Party’s violence problem

PostmodernProphet said:
your paranoia is classic......Terry v Ohio has decided that stop and frisk is not inherently unconstitutional......the District Court held that what NYC was doing was a violation and they stopped doing it......it can still be done in a way which does NOT violate the constitution under the Terry rule......
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstitutional/
Click to expand...

No court has the authority to change the Constitution.
False authority fallacy.
 
Micawber said:
Terry v Ohio makes perfect sense to me.

[FONT=&]"a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

What the hell do we pay and arm cops for if not to stop someone armed who is about to commit a crime, based on reasonable suspicion? [/FONT]
Click to expand...

that reasonable suspicion has to be articulated..........for example, cops aren't allowed to just stop someone and frisk them for walking down the street, the same way one can't pull over drivers to check if they have a license
 
Nordberg said:
Fuck does" Into the dark" lie. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx The Supremes have exactly the authority he denies exists. He said this over and over and it simply is not true. Marbury v Madison is the precedence.
Click to expand...

usurping a power doesn't make it constitutional. It is the height of stupidity to believe that the framers would create a new central government with limited powers because of their natural distrust of government and then give that government the power to define their own powers............
 
Nordberg said:
Fuck does" Into the dark" lie. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx The Supremes have exactly the authority he denies exists. He said this over and over and it simply is not true. Marbury v Madison is the precedence.
Click to expand...

I think a person who truly believes what they are saying due to mental illness, like INT, is not lying.

He's so out of touch that I do not doubt he believes his claims in his posts no matter how outlandish or false.

Because of his mental illness, he can actually live on Mount Stupid where sane people always gain experience no matter how slowly. Let's not forget that the average age on this forum is over 60.

xys7alI.jpg
 
Micawber said:
Terry v Ohio makes perfect sense to me.

[FONT=&]"a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

What the hell do we pay and arm cops for if not to stop someone armed who is about to commit a crime, based on reasonable suspicion? [/FONT]
Click to expand...

A court does not have authority to change the Constitution.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
usurping a power doesn't make it constitutional. It is the height of stupidity to believe that the framers would create a new central government with limited powers because of their natural distrust of government and then give that government the power to define their own powers............
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I think a person who truly believes what they are saying due to mental illness, like INT, is not lying.

He's so out of touch that I do not doubt he believes his claims in his posts no matter how outlandish or false.

Because of his mental illness, he can actually live on Mount Stupid where sane people always gain experience no matter how slowly. Let's not forget that the average age on this forum is over 60.
Click to expand...

Psychoquackery. Buzzword fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Insult fallacies. Trolling. No argument presented.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
usurping a power doesn't make it constitutional. It is the height of stupidity to believe that the framers would create a new central government with limited powers because of their natural distrust of government and then give that government the power to define their own powers............
Click to expand...

It is totally logical. they were flawed human beings doing a difficult job. They knew they could not get it all right and it would last for all time. It was not about distrust of their new government, but trust that they could make it perfect.
 
Nordberg said:
It is totally logical. they were flawed human beings doing a difficult job. They knew they could not get it all right and it would last for all time. It was not about distrust of their new government, but trust that they could make it perfect.
Click to expand...

Random statement. Lost context. Void argument fallacy.
 
Into the Night said:
Lying via manufactured quote. Slander. YALSA. Psychoquackery. Reference to fictional character. Insult fallacies. Trolling.
Click to expand...

Day #595 Patient still believes he's three different people although the third personality has regressed and not logged in since 09-04-2021. Will continue to both observe and interact.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
i'm very familiar with terry stops...........that's not what the stop and frisk was doing though, unless everybody is suspicious in NYC
Click to expand...

the issue isn't what NYC was doing.......the issue is what the new mayor will BE doing......and yes, stop and frisk can be done within the limits of the constitution, as Terry v Ohio says........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top