Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 76

Thread: Stop and Frisk equals Bloomberg is going to lose

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,937
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bullseye View Post
    Stop and Frisk by itself is not the issue. What is the issue is Bloomberg's profile of a criminal as a young man 16-25 year old minority, saying you can use this description every time---just Xerox it off and pass it out to the police (as the perp.).

    As an absolute statement and a profile, it really pissed off a lot of black people. "Frisky" Bloomberg is in trouble.
    Stop and Frisk as a tactic came into being after the landmark case Terry vs. Ohio. I became pretty much convinced that New York cops know fvck all about any 4th Amendment issues after trying to have a convo on Lightfighter with the late Pat Rogers about the 'stop talk and frisk' program the NYPD had implemented.

    I left the conversation with the distinct idea that all NYPD taught in the Academy was NYPD regulations. Something that I had already had in my mind from an NYPD officer who came through our reciprocity class.

    When the whole freaking PD doesn't understand the issue, hard to expect the Mayor to have a real grasp either.
    Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President... - Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and Free Speech, Metropolitan Magazine, Volume 47, Number 6, May 1918.

    Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party Mao Zedong, 6 November, 1938 - speech to the Communist Patry of China's sixth Central Committee

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,937
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by jpmuscle View Post
    False. SnF is an absolute raping of the 4th amendment.

    The irony is profiling actually makes sense in some AOs.
    Don't quit your day job to pursue a career teaching Fourth Amendment issues, you'll starve.
    Last edited by 26 Inf; 02-12-20 at 21:59.
    Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President... - Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and Free Speech, Metropolitan Magazine, Volume 47, Number 6, May 1918.

    Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party Mao Zedong, 6 November, 1938 - speech to the Communist Patry of China's sixth Central Committee

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    OUTPOST 31
    Posts
    10,518
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)

    Stop and Frisk equals Bloomberg is going to lose

    Quote Originally Posted by 26 Inf View Post
    Don't quit your day job to pursue a career teaching Fourth Amendment issues, you'll starve.
    Such pesky constraints have no business disrupting enforcement actions.

    ETA: also “public safety” is the most BS justification for anything law enforcement related .

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by jpmuscle; 02-12-20 at 22:07.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    300
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Stop and Frisk equals Bloomberg is going to lose

    Quote Originally Posted by 26 Inf View Post
    Stop and Frisk as a tactic came into being after the landmark case Terry vs. Ohio. I became pretty much convinced that New York cops know fvck all about any 4th Amendment issues after trying to have a convo on Lightfighter with the late Pat Rogers about the 'stop talk and frisk' program the NYPD had implemented.

    I left the conversation with the distinct idea that all NYPD taught in the Academy was NYPD regulations. Something that I had already had in my mind from an NYPD officer who came through our reciprocity class.

    When the whole freaking PD doesn't understand the issue, hard to expect the Mayor to have a real grasp either.
    Man... it’s not even the PD. It’s all of NY. The place is ran like a feudal state. I moved from Long Island to Denver and it took a solid few years to get used to the differences. The average citizen has no idea of their rights, and they are most definitely not brought up to speed in the academy as you noted. They don’t call it the Empire State for nothin.
    Last edited by marco.g; 02-12-20 at 23:36.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    15,423
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I don't think Bloomberg likes being told no and I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't apply to a guy with that much money.
    If there is an upside to all of this it seems that Black people hate Bloomberg for stop and frisk and they're becoming involved in this election in a unique way at a great time.
    Bloomberg is dangerous, he's a homegrown fascist of the first order, our very own Soros.
    May they both burn in hell.
    Bloomberg is going to stumble up and say something Bloomberg and it's going t be like crapping in his own hat. Even the Democratic Party will be forced to turn their backs on him. Imagine how Trump could make that happen in a debate with the pressure on?
    Last edited by Averageman; 02-13-20 at 02:03.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    9,925
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Blomberg is nothing if not a pragmatist when it comes to his goals:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-b...131701762.html

    Michael Bloomberg's Campaign Suddenly Drops Memes Everywhere

    Mike Bloomberg has contracted with some of the biggest meme-makers on the internet to post sponsored content on Instagram promoting his presidential campaign.

    The Bloomberg campaign is working with Meme 2020, a new company formed by some of the people behind extremely influential accounts.

    Mick Purzycki is the lead strategist of the Meme 2020 project. He is also the chief executive of Jerry Media, a media and marketing company that is a powerful force in the influencer economy. The company’s portfolio includes some of the most notable meme accounts on Instagram. Jerry Media was at the center of controversy last year after a debate around proper crediting in meme culture.

    In January, Purzycki tapped a number of large influencers whom he had formed relationships with through his association with Jerry Media. (Elliot Tebele, the founder of Jerry Media, has no involvement in the project.)

    The campaign, which launched this week, has already placed sponsored posts on Instagram accounts including @GrapeJuiceBoys, a meme page with more than 2.7 million followers; Jerry Media’s own most popular account, with more than 13.3 million followers; and @Tank.Sinatra, a member with more than 2.3 million followers.

    The accounts all posted Bloomberg campaign ads in the form of fake direct messages from the candidate.

    “Mr. Tank:” an ad on @Tank.Sinatra begins, “I’ve been waiting for my meme for so long that I learned how to make memes myself in photoshop. What do you think of this one?” The message is followed by a photo of Bernie Sanders that has become a meme in recent weeks.

    George Resch, a director of influencer marketing at Brandfire and founder of @Tank.Sinatra, has served as Meme 2020’s primary liaison with the meme community.

    Resch has posted two ads so far on behalf of the campaign. On Sunday, he posted an ad in which a fake direct message from Bloomberg asks Resch to make him look “cool” for the Democratic primary.

    Evan Reeves, a creative director for Jerry Media, was brought in as the head of creative to devise an unconventional campaign and to build a self-aware ironic character around Bloomberg.

    All of the ads posted so far feature disclosures that they are ads, although many followers assumed that the posts were satirical. One account made the disclosure straightforwardly: “yes this is really #sponsored by @mikebloomberg,” in the caption.

    “It’s the most successful ad that I’ve ever posted,” Resch said, “and I think a lot of it came from people being confused whether or not it was real.”

    Other influencers have been quick to praise the campaign. “Best advert ever,” commented Chris Burkard, a travel influencer who has more than 3.5 million followers. “So good,” commented Jason Strauss, a partner at the Tao Group.

    Many meme account followers, however, were more skeptical. “This is a clear example of what wealth can get you votes. Bloomberg’s a billionaire and is able to pull in endorsements like this,” commented user @rebelwithoutapause_.

    “I hate this,” commented Ed Droste, a musician.

    Memers involved with Meme 2020 include: @MyTherapistSays, @WhitePeopleHumor, @TheFunnyIntrovert, @KaleSalad, @Sonny5ideUp, @Tank.Sinatra, @ShitheadSteve, @adam.the.creator, @moistbudda, @MrsDowJones, @TrashCanPaul, @cohmedy, @NeatDad, @FourTwenty, @GolfersDoingThings, @DrGrayFang, @MiddleClassFancy and @DoYouEvenLift. Together, the collective has an audience of more than 60 million followers.

    “Mike Bloomberg 2020 has teamed up with social creators to collaborate with the campaign, including the meme world,” Sabrina Singh, a senior national spokeswoman for the Bloomberg campaign, said in a statement. “While a meme strategy may be new to presidential politics, we’re betting it will be an effective component to reach people where they are and compete with President Trump’s powerful digital operation.”

    The campaign recently announced it had hired Eric Kuhn, who made a name for himself as Hollywood’s first “social media agent,” representing digital talent at United Talent Agency.

    Last week, The Daily Beast reported that the Bloomberg campaign was offering social media influencers $150 to create content in support of Bloomberg through Tribe, a “branded content marketplace” that connects social-media influencers with brands.

    “We’re trying to be innovative with how we’re translating the campaign message on social, trying to do it how the internet actually works,” an aide to the Bloomberg campaign said. “Tweeting from @mikebloomberg is a very 2008 strategy.”

    “The way Trump’s campaign is run is extremely social first,” the aide continued. “We’re trying to break the mold in how the Democratic Party works with marketing, communication and advertising, and do it in a way that’s extremely internet and social native.”

    Other candidates, like Andrew Yang, who announced the end of his campaign this week, have been able to make a splash on social media by appealing to influential YouTubers and memers. Sanders has successfully secured endorsements from popular internet figures with large followings such as podcaster Joe Rogan and YouTubers Tyler Oakley and Ethan Klein. Niche meme communities like Da Share Zone and NUMTOT have also come out in support of Sanders.

    After several large Instagram memers became aware Wednesday of Bloomberg’s influencer campaign, many expressed an interest in creating sponsored posts for him. The campaign so far has seemed amenable. “We want to work with creators, and we’ve never been shy about paying people for creative work,” the aide said.

    Teenagers, many of whom can’t yet vote themselves, seemed excited about the prospect. “I would be down — bread is bread,” said the teenager who runs the meme page @BigDadWhip. “That would be kind of dope. I could say I helped a presidential candidate.”

    This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
    What if this whole crusade's a charade?
    And behind it all there's a price to be paid
    For the blood which we dine
    Justified in the name of the holy and the divine…

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1,013
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jpmuscle View Post
    False. SnF is an absolute raping of the 4th amendment.

    The irony is profiling actually makes sense in some AOs.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Stop and Frisk is another issue all by itself. What Bloomberg said is classic racial prejudice, stereotyping/racial profiling because he instructs the police to apply it unequally. We need more discussion and clarification on stop and frisk as you seem to want to do but in doing that we should not let Mini-Mike out of the news cycle unscathed.

    I might add that when the California Highway Patrol looks inside my car and checks me for a seat belt and issues me a ticket, my 4th Amendment rights have been violated also.
    Last edited by Dr. Bullseye; 02-13-20 at 11:20.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,937
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by jpmuscle View Post
    Such pesky constraints have no business disrupting enforcement actions.

    ETA: also “public safety” is the most BS justification for anything law enforcement related .

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Nah, don't agree. Have you read the full text of Terry v. Ohio? I tend to believe that if you read it you would believe the actions of Officer McFadden were entirely reasonable, as did the SCOTUS. Unfortunately, NYPD didn't execute their program IAW with the elements of Terry.

    You need to start with officers of sound character, effectively teach the elements of Constitutional Law and test them rigorously. Make them guardians of every person's rights. Which obviously wasn't the case with Bloomberg and NYPD in the 'stop, talk, frisk' program.

    The law should help them in this process, for example, on vehicle stops, officers should be required to stick to the objective reason of the stop unless they develop PC from their plain-view observations.

    Whren v. United States (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-5841) is a solid example of plain-view PC after an objectively reasonable traffic stop. I agree with the Whren decision, based on the facts OF THAT CASE, however I think there should be limits, as I indicated in the bolded portion in the paragraph above.

    As an example, altering the facts of Whren a bit, if the officers hadn't seen Whren holding plastic bags of crack cocaine, to my way of thinking before they asked for consent to search they would have had to explain that 1) Whren and Brown were free to leave; and 2) That they didn't have to consent to the search, and that the consent could be withdrawn at any time.

    Those two elements are Constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. To believe that every person within the United States is aware of those right is ludicrous, they need to be advised of those rights in order to knowledgeably waive them.
    Last edited by 26 Inf; 02-13-20 at 12:11.
    Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President... - Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and Free Speech, Metropolitan Magazine, Volume 47, Number 6, May 1918.

    Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party Mao Zedong, 6 November, 1938 - speech to the Communist Patry of China's sixth Central Committee

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,556
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by OH58D View Post
    I don't use or carry illegal drugs, so if I was stopped and a K-9 was brought out that "alerted", I might ask for clarification of what the dog was "alerting" to. Could be the contents of the bag of Green Chile Beef Jerky I was gnawing on before the stop.
    Most likely it alerted on their desire to conduct a fishing expedition in hopes they can find a reason to steal your vehicle via asset forfeiture.

    Quote Originally Posted by OH58D View Post
    I could have the officer let the dog tell me what it thinks is in my vehicle, but that would probably get me leaning over the hood of his patrol car in cuffs.
    Careful...That sounds like furtive movements.

    One of the benefits of legal weed in CO is that our supreme court recently ruled that LE in the state can no longer use a dog to create probable cause for a search.


    Anyway, unfortunate as it is, I think ol' Mike is gonna buy the nomination and probably end up our Supreme Leader. I'm working on a plan to start identifying as a non-binary lesbian muslim from Kenya so that I can reserve my seat at the front of the Free Shit Train.
    Last edited by kerplode; 02-13-20 at 12:06.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    OUTPOST 31
    Posts
    10,518
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by 26 Inf View Post
    Nah, don't agree. Have you read the full text of Terry v. Ohio? I tend to believe that if you read it you would believe the actions of Officer McFadden were entirely reasonable, as did the SCOTUS. Unfortunately, NYPD didn't execute their program IAW with the elements of Terry.

    You need to start with officers of sound character, effectively teach the elements of Constitutional Law and test them rigorously. Make them guardians of every person's rights. Which obviously wasn't the case with Bloomberg and NYPD in the 'stop, talk, frisk' program.

    The law should help them in this process, for example, on vehicle stops, officers should be required to stick to the objective reason of the stop unless they develop PC from their plain-view observations.

    Whren v. United States (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-5841) is a solid example of plain-view PC after an objectively reasonable traffic stop. I agree with the Whren decision, based on the facts OF THAT CASE, however I think there should be limits, as I indicated in the bolded portion in the paragraph above.

    As an example, altering the facts of Whren a bit, if the officers hadn't seen Whren holding plastic bags of crack cocaine, to my way of thinking before they asked for consent to search they would have had to explain that 1) Whren and Brown were free to leave; and 2) That they didn't have to consent to the search, and that the consent could be withdrawn at any time.

    Those two elements are Constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. To believe that every person within the United States is aware of those right is ludicrous, they need to be advised of those rights in order to knowledgeably waive them.
    It appears you missed the satire in my post.

    Yes I’ve read Terry v. Ohio.

    As for SnF it was constructed and implemented in an AO where 99.99% can not lawfully carry thus lending to the justification of frisking whomever and wherever. RAS is the most benign and virtually minuscule threshold in policing and they couldn’t even do that right.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •