PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Stop and Frisk




Working Poor
07-31-2013, 08:20 PM
jDoes anyone know if Ron has ever said anything speciffic regarding "stop and frisk"? Thanks in advance for your help I am involved in a pretty good discussion on this with some liberals.

Christian Liberty
07-31-2013, 08:21 PM
I don't know if he did, but I know what he would say.

No.

John Taylor
07-31-2013, 10:08 PM
Is it what Ron Paul says, or what the U.S. Constitution (and its ancestors in the common law---the English Bill of Rights, the writings of Algernon Sidney etc...) says?

Stop and frisk is based on the "reasonableness" clause of the 4th Amendment.

Working Poor
08-01-2013, 03:53 AM
bump

Right Wing
08-01-2013, 04:44 AM
Is it what Ron Paul says, or what the U.S. Constitution (and its ancestors in the common law---the English Bill of Rights, the writings of Algernon Sidney etc...) says?

Stop and frisk is based on the "reasonableness" clause of the 4th Amendment.

How is it reasonable?

Working Poor
08-01-2013, 05:25 AM
yea how is it reasonable? I tend to think Ron would be opposed to this I wish I could find some concrete evidence.

mrsat_98
08-01-2013, 05:32 AM
How is it reasonable?

It is reasonable because there is a war on drugs that applies to "man or other animals". The searchee in all respects is nothing but an animal. Thats is why it is reasonable folks. Please folks return to your pens and cages. There is nothing to see here.

pcosmar
08-01-2013, 08:50 AM
Stop and frisk is based on the "reasonableness" clause of the 4th Amendment.


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.
A reasonable search is accompanied by a Warrant,, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Anything less is unreasonable.

Anti Federalist
08-01-2013, 12:39 PM
A reasonable search is accompanied by a Warrant,, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Anything less is unreasonable.

Only lawyers could fuck something that simple, up.

pcosmar
08-01-2013, 12:56 PM
Only lawyers could fuck something that simple, up.

And politicians.. (though many are lawyers,,as it happens)

You would think "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear too.

Anti Federalist
08-01-2013, 01:16 PM
Format fail, so I can't copypasta, but page two is gold:

Snowden's father's letter to O-bomb-ya.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/tvnews/dateline%20nbc/obama.pdf

Working Poor
08-01-2013, 02:08 PM
So I take it Ron would call "stop and frisk" unconstitutional? I wish I could prove it.

pcosmar
08-01-2013, 02:21 PM
So I take it Ron would call "stop and frisk" unconstitutional? I wish I could prove it.

My "sig line" covers his sentiment. He has most likely said more on the subject,, but not sure where or when.

Anti Federalist
08-01-2013, 03:28 PM
How is it reasonable?

"It's reasonable because I fucking say it's reasonable!" - Officer Freindly

presence
08-01-2013, 03:58 PM
not sure what Ron has said but here is a good lead on more info

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock_and_talk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisking
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisking)


you might also want to check lewrockwell for articles


Also Jan 7 2012 he may have said something about racial disparities in in a debate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002137460

John Taylor
08-01-2013, 06:09 PM
A reasonable search is accompanied by a Warrant,, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Anything less is unreasonable.

Unfortunately, that is not what the 4th Amendment states. There are two clauses of the 4th Amendment. The former states that a search must be reasonable, and the second states that no warrant shall issue but for cause. Searches of homes and areas which under the common law required a warrant, still do so under the 4th Amendment, but reasonableness governs searches in other areas, like automobiles or while walking along the street for instance. The reason why these searches do not, and have never required warrants is because of the impossibility to present evidence to an impartial magistrate and secure warrant within sufficient time to search the individual or place. These "exigent" circumstances, flowing directly from the clear text of the first clause of the 4th Amendment, is what allows searches to be conducted without warrants.


Only lawyers could fuck something that simple, up.

Bigotry. Check yourself.

John Taylor
08-01-2013, 06:12 PM
"It's reasonable because I fucking say it's reasonable!" - Officer Freindly

Actually no. I just won on a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable search of a client of mine who only "appeared" suspicious to the arresting officers because he "refused to make sustained eye contact"...

Reasonableness is not carte blanche.

Working Poor
08-01-2013, 06:19 PM
John- do you think stop and frisk is illegal?

John Taylor
08-01-2013, 06:24 PM
John- do you think stop and frisk is illegal?

Illegal as in unconstitutional? It is done per statute, so in that sense the law is being followed. If by your question you mean, is it constitutional to stop and frisk? Well, presuming that the 4th Amendment is correctly being incorporated against the States, then unless an officer has a reasonable suspicion or higher standard of evidence, such a search is almost certainly IMPERMISSIBLE in my opinion as a criminal defense attorney.

Anti Federalist
08-02-2013, 08:24 AM
Bigotry. Check yourself.

Tongue in cheek comment that rings true.

Lighten up, Francis.

pcosmar
08-02-2013, 10:17 AM
Unfortunately, that is not what the 4th Amendment states. There are two clauses of the 4th Amendment.

Ahh,,NO.
Despite how Lawyers and Judges have twisted it.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
It says nothing about Reasonable searches in the first clause.. It says the right of people to be secure 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.
The second clause covers the only time such a search should EVER take place,, The only reasonable search.

pcosmar
08-02-2013, 04:16 PM
Originally Posted by Anti Federalist
Only lawyers could fuck something that simple, up.





Bigotry. Check yourself.

It is my opinion as well. Earned by experience.

And even Christ only spoke harshly to 2 types of people. Religious people and Lawyers.

If you wish, I will make an open offer to change my mind,, and to prove that there is at least one good lawyer.

Should you wish to accept such a challenge,, I will start a new thread,, and document it in entirety.


Individual Rights & Liberties,, would be a good place for it.

Post affirmative,, and I will start one.

Feeding the Abscess
08-14-2013, 09:47 PM
Working Poor:

The latest Ron Paul Channel episode contains Ron's thoughts on Stop and Frisk. Shock! He's against it.