If they think someone is up to no good, they should be allowed to search. Is the goal to get the guy after the crime or prevent crimes from happening? If someone suspicious is walking outside your house are you waiting for them to break in before you call the cops or you calling before? Maybe we should be thrilled we got the guy in Uvalde, TX. Great job by all.
I am pretty sure that the "Did anyone pack your bags" questions were post 9/11. I have no idea what you refer to Al Gore stupidity in reference to this subject. There was very little security before 9/11 and the terrorists exploited that weakness.
ok, so if the police just think that the guy is up to no good, based on what? Is he doing something? Does he have a bulge in his pocket that may be a weapon, is he looking like he is doing drug transactions, is he acting unruly and making too much noise? You have to be able to explain that a person is doing something -that is called reasonable and articulable suspicions. Just saying he looks suspicious is not enough to search the person.
I'm not all over the place. The question was posed is the goal to get the guy after the crime or prevent the crime? If our goal is not to prevent crimes, then what's the point of all this? We will have more Uvalde cases if the goal is not prevent crimes. We're living in a world that the criminals and brilliant mind's like yourself are using the laws to weaken good people and give more power to criminals. Another shooting in Maryland yesterday. There isn't a proven better way than to make everyone aware that at any point in time they could be looked at. In your example if that guy is doing nothing wrong, he has nothing to worry about. Although some of your example is a complete waste. It's not like the guy is walking around looking for the nearest pay phone because his car broke down. If he's got an uber car coming, he'll easily be able to show the cops. What is the harm of any of that?
The idea of police searching people by saying only that they look suspicious reeks of a police state and something I am pretty sure not even you would want to live in. If you are walking down the street, you want to be searched by the police because you "looked suspicious?" Pretty extreme.
You might be right. You have anything on this? I can't find anything except this.
www.npr.org
I don't care if they search me daily. I really don't. It will be a pain, but if it makes everyone around me more comfortable then I'm okay with it. I still wear a mask around people who wear masks to make them feel more comfortable. I don't like it but I do it. Am I giving up my rights to do so, absolutely not.
Again, airports and the streets are two different things. I tried to explain to you in a previous post. Masks and searches are not equivalent. But, if you don't mind getting searched and living in a police state, that is you. I would and most American would.
My definition of a police state and yours are a completely different. I don't think giving police the authority to be proactive in preventing crimes is a police state. From what I'm reading I would be led to believe you think metal detectors in schools or stores is a police state. I think our definitions are completely different. This is not fear taking us down, this is preventing the youth in your family and my family from getting killed by some whacko and not worrying about the feelings of someone getting checked out for being suspicious.
You keep conflating issues. Keep to one issue - Police being able to stop and frisk for essentially no reason - "look suspicious." What qualifies for looks suspicious? Long hair? Tall? ripped jeans? carrying a backpack?
Considering what's going on in the world, absolutely I am. I tried to explain to you, I got nothing to hide, I'm no danger to society. I am willing to do that.
Yeah we currently have reasonable articulate suspicion. It's not working. Criminals have figured out a way to not be suspicious.
Literally none of that is even remotely true, that was back in the 80’s.You might be right. You have anything on this? I can't find anything except this.
"Before 9/11, security was almost invisible, and it was really designed to be that way," Price says. "It was designed to be something in the background that really wasn't that noticeable and definitely did not interfere with aircraft or airport operations."
"You could walk up to the gate at the very last minute. You did not have to have a boarding pass," Price says. "All you had to do was go through the security checkpoint — no questions asked, no ID needed."It Was Shoes On, No Boarding Pass Or ID. But Airport Security Forever Changed On 9/11
No boarding pass or ID was needed to go to the gate, and 4-inch-blade knives were allowed aboard planes. Now we take off shoes, can't have liquids over 3.4 oz and go through high-tech body scanners.
It has passed has it not? The one month wait was so hard for you to take. But two years on the federal judges bill is not too long? The NJ faction wanted to protect all federal judges. Why isn’t that bill passed as well?
Oh you just don't get it. The SCOTUS bill was passed overwhelmingly with bi-partisan support The NJ faction takes a symbolic stance to vote no because they want the Federal judges bill to be passed. In support of their NJ Federal judge whose son was murdered. They did not block the bill.
Well that is good you feel that way. Then you must find Rand Paul’s positions absolutely abhorrent since his vote blocked the bill to protect all federal judges.
They all get threats of one kind or another... but the issue here is the protests being made outside their homes in an effort to impact the outcome of their deliberations. That is clearly against the law and the protesters should be charged. Do you think that if a left leaning judge was being threatened by protesters outrside their homes that the dems wouldn't be screaming bloody murder and demanding the protesters be jailed..... probably along side the Jan 6 rioters some of whom are still sitting in their jail cells uncharged. The scales of justice lean left.
The law that you speak of is violated every time a protest is on the Supreme Court steps which happens all the time from all political positions.
You were the one who called Rand Paul disgraceful. You should just be consistent in your views when it’s the other side. Just saying.
B.S. "Distastesful???" It's against the law what the protetsers are doing to the SC Justices. the doxxing, the obvious danger to the Justices and their families, Schumer... calling out and threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.... no condemnation from the admin.... hah it took one letter from the School Board association and cordination between the White House to get The department of injustice to investigate parents speaking out at school board meetings. "Distasteful?" Give me freakin' break.
This is the law you are referring to:
www.politico.com
I'm not seeing the connection between the article you cite from 1 1/2 years ago about election laws and this discussion.This is the law you are referring to:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The problem with you thinking this is against the law is 1) the decision on the case has already been decided. Thus, the protests are not to influence the justices. 2) this law refers to protests near the courts or residence. This portion is violated many times a year by both sides of the political spectrum. Please see this article. So what you want to pick and choose when to enforce this law.
Opinion | The Supreme Court’s “Breathtakingly Radical” New Approach to Election Law
The justices won’t end up deciding the 2020 presidential race, but they have set the stage for a massive rollback of voting rights.
I would say in basketball terms, it's like working the officials for the next call. The last case was already decided, but you can make the case these people are trying to make justices think twice before their next decison
The decision has been made. It has not been published. There may be tweeks but that is the decision. Second, it’s not debatable that the courthouse steps are part of the law. It’s explicitly stated within the law. Near a courthouse is the wording. The courthouse steps is the courthouse. The statute does not state that a judges home is different than the courthouse. It’s equivalent under the statute.
Who’s condoning that?
Who said it was one side? Wasn’t this guy was a criminal with previous arrests? Agree too many people are locked in their personal echo chambers and go off the rails. Leaders have to lead though and stop fueling it.
