Unreasonable search and seizure

Kind of a big deal since its enshrined in the constitution. Statistics or not, you need a real reason to violate an individual's right to privacy.

Might be time to edit that napkin a bit. Crime rates in x area are more than enough justification and considered reasonable.

Fair no. But its not fair to be caught in a crossfire either.

I know if I lived in x community and I saw crime rates decrease due to those efforts making it less likley my child will be caught in a cross fire or less likley to involved in criminal activity I would advocate it.

This post was edited by SBD on Oct 9 2018 11:22am

the keyword there is 'unreasonable'. What constitutes the reasonable search, the probable cause, has an entire field of arguments behind it, with definitions coming and going and new supreme court rulings setting them
why just this summer, there was a question of whether an officer could search a stolen vehicle in plain view based on the distinction of it being on a public street vs being a few feet away on a driveway. And Alito cribbed dickens to quip 'An ordinary person of common sense would react to the court’s decision the way Mr. Bumble famously responded when told about a legal rule that did not comport with the reality of everyday life. If that is the law, he exclaimed, ‘the law is a ass—a idiot.’

the thing is;


the definition of whats reasonable might look different from the jurist in the ivory tower versus the cop on the street, and its hubris to suggest that one interpretation is always right

just to be clear, did you just blame BLM, rather than unconstitutional search tactics, for the anti-Police narrative?

BLM is surely an agitator, but the tactics themselves are to blame for anti police sentiments and for a general lack of reporting of crimes.

State thugs don't need more power, that's silly. Chicago needs a bottom up change in tactics for the whole city, not a band aid. The whole place is largely unfixable anyways, tossing more brothas in jail won't do anything to the city. It's broken.

That I can agree with. It needs a complete rebuild.

I have friends in Chicago, certain areas with once great blues houses are not even zones they will travel in anymore.

This post was edited by SBD on Oct 9 2018 11:33am

i was born and raised in the burbs, lived my life a quick ride from the Chi. It was trash when i was a kid too, the trash just revolved every few years while they develop new parts. Now all of the city is trash and the burbs are the only semi-safe place. There was a time when people talkied about kids from "the wrong side of town", but that's now the whole town. You have to get pretty north to even consider yourself safe enough to keep a CD player in your car.

If the cops want to try and do some broken windows policing they can start with illegal squatters in the old industrial districts, at least then they could operate within their constitutional bounds. Those places are flooded with guns, drugs, gangs, etc. You're not gonna stop the drug gangs, but when you round up 20 dealers you just open up gangs to recruit 20 new young kids.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 9 2018 11:36am

That's the core problem that's going to take time to fix. Influencers getting to youth and recruiting continuing the cycle to the next generation. To fight that you need to go a level lower to determine why they're even considering the decision and then go a root lower to why there's poverty and it does all stem back to oppression without a doubt.

But now how does one fix the issue that is spreading like a plague.

Absolutely. NYC is a case study in how the anti-police narrative is divorced from the heavyhanded policing and instead just a product of groupthink and media narrative. We went through decades of tough-on-crime policing and the social backlash only came after Giuliani's era was history. Did the hippies wait until 5-7 years after the fall of Saigon to start their protests and weathermen underground terrorism? By 1982 the nation had already swung the pendulum back to christian conservatism.

If what was really driving the anti-police narrative was opposition to infringement of civil liberties, all the Antifa and white guilt Baizuo liberals would have been out in force when the NYPD was breathing down every black kid's neck. Instead the frightened whitey went to the ballot box and voted for the party that said it would keep away the Willie Hortons. Now here we are with state governments seriously debating just how far to go in refusing to enforce the laws on the books and how much amnesty and free support to give to illegal aliens and how to shelter black criminals- yet the anti-Police narrative is stronger than its ever been in my lifetime. Seven cops get shot and the social media responses are 'they deserved it', any black man goes on a crime spree and loses his shootout with police and the angry mobs want the cop's head.

If anything, its a paradoxical symptom of societal decadence. The opposition to infringements on liberties winds up being inversely proportional to how severe the measures are. When times are harder and people feel more threatened, they're willing to accept more heavyhanded tactics and they'll support the police. When people live in the comfort and safety of their low-crime suburbs and grow up never knowing what its like to either get mugged or be oppressed by state thugs, they grow a conscience and embrace liberalism and call the cops all pigs and spit on their graves. And next thing you know, California is dumping dangerous criminals on the street en masse after rewriting the drug laws, the felony murder laws, etc etc.

The hubris here is to suggest that being tough on crime or soft on crime are either way necessarily right or wrong. My moral relativist streak tells me that there's a time and a place when either one is appropriate, and its cultural delusion that leads to misjudging the degree in either direction.

that's a whole lotta words to skirt around the simple fact that black communities have been highly anti-police and declaring themselves victims since basically jim crow. Who the fuck needs a NYC case study when we have the history of rap music?

the internet, and BLM (read: the internet) aggravated the spread of such sentiments. but to call them causal is nonsensical. The internet is not only the aggrivator of some of the sentiments, it's also a new avenue for protest. BLM is a hashtag, not a movement, the overwhelming usage of the phrase is just anti-police protest sentiment on social media, the actual chapters are unbound to each other and pale in comparison.

as happens all too often, you fail to account for the internet. its the most important factor in any historical comparisons, and fills all the blanks here. we all have an infinitely easier way of expressing ALL narratives due to the internet. flat earth beliefs are on the rise, perhaps i should correlate that to something useless rather than the internet like Cleveland browns wins.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 9 2018 12:00pm

White people had televisions and telephones in the 1980s and got exposed to plenty of viewpoints. And the Black Panthers made themselves visible. Did giving a keyboard to a Moorish Kang make society start listening to him? Why support him now, and not then? I saw a mob march down the street not far from me chanting "pigs in a blanket, fry'em like bacon", and they weren't black nationalists who had cops scrutinizing them their whole lives, they were largely white kids from the burbs still on their parent's cell phone plans.

Just a few short decades ago, a typical police interaction with blacks would be that if cops wanted to find a suspect in a black bar, they'd burst in with a shotgun slung over their shoulder and say all the niggers get up against the wall with their hands up until we find our gangbanger. And the majority of America would have no problems with that. Now a typical police interaction looks like this- https://www.app.com/story/news/2018/10/05/belmar-police-harassment-allegations-follow-black-girl-beach-day/1514883002/ - they organize an event that violates multiple codes, other citizens call the police, the police show up and politely talk to them and decide not to bother enforcing the law at all and let them carry on. And then the media gets to post articles about how oppressed and victimized they are and how racist the police are and post videos so heavily edited that all they can show is 2 seconds of one girl talking at an officer and cut off his reply because they don't want to let you know how reasonable he was.

We live in a time when cops are more accountable than ever, better behaved then ever, and our personal rights during interactions with the police are more strictly protected than ever (mass state surveillance, on the other hand...)
Yet even with that, the anti-cop narrative has skyrocketed. Why now? Why not before Terry or before Miranda, or during the racial profiling heyday?
I don't think that can be handwaved as due to internet meme magic