CNN's Don Lemon At It Again

JamesL

JamesL

Amazing the shit a black guy will get when he goes against message:

Don Lemon's Endorsement Of Stop And Frisk Gets Him In Big Trouble

CNN host Don Lemon got a big chunk of Twitter very mad at him on Tuesday after he endorsed New York's reviled stop and frisk policies.

Speaking during his regular slot on the Tom Joyner show, Lemon said that police were not always very respectful of the people they stopped, but that tampering with the "formula that has reduced crime in New York City" could be very dangerous.

"The question is, would you rather be politically correct or safe and alive?" he concluded.

Well, that didn't go so well with people. There was even a hashtag created:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/don-lemon-stop-and-frisk_n_4219415.html
 
""The question is, would you rather be politically correct or safe and alive?" he concluded."

As a conservative, I'd rather be free and in danger.
 
Quote from Ricter:

As a conservative, I'd rather be free and in danger.
More...

Yes, if it means giving the government the right to stop and frisk anyone without probable cause. That's called a police state and I don't want to live in one. My freedom is more important than my safety.

The overreach of our federal government has hit unprecedented levels. Now it's filtered down to the local level. What surprises me most is how many so-called liberals are willing to support this rampant government abuse of our Constitutional rights.
 
This stop and frisk business is one of the more important issues of our time. There are strong arguments, and very weak ones too, to be made on both sides. It is not enough, and it is a weak argument, just to say it violates one's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. The courts have spoken on this issue, though not unanimously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

A critical issue, imo, in Terry v. Ohio was delineated by the Ohio Appeals Court,viz., 'we must be careful to distinguish that the "frisk" authorized herein includes only a "frisk" for a dangerous weapon. It by no means authorizes a search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest. Such a search is controlled by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and probable cause is essential.'

Later when the Supreme Court reviewed, Justice Warren stated that the opinion of the Ohio Appeals Court was also that of the Supreme Court. In other words the search, had to be justified based on reasonable concern for the safety of police or the public AND it must be limited in scope to turning up weapons or items that would put the police or public in danger; thus without probable cause prior to the search one could not retain or arrest a subject because contraband, or say small amounts of illegal drugs, were found on their person in the course of the search. Whereas presumably large amounts of the same, greater than would be reasonable for individual consumption, might be assumed to be a danger to the public. So one sees immediately that there are nuances left unaddressed by the court.

Chief Justice warren stated: "The sole justification of the search ... is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer." However, it is not to be assumed from this statement that the decision only pertained to protection of the police, because elsewhere it is clear that public protection is included.

The New York question then centers on "Reasonableness", and the criteria for reasonableness. Does ones racial appearance when coupled with crime statistics constitute a reasonable criteria? It's a big question.

N.B. -- underlining is mine throughout.
 
Quote from tomdavis:

Yes, if it means giving the government the right to stop and frisk anyone without probable cause. That's called a police state and I don't want to live in one. My freedom is more important than my safety.

The overreach of our federal government has hit unprecedented levels. Now it's filtered down to the local level. What surprises me most is how many so-called liberals are willing to support this rampant government abuse of our Constitutional rights.
More...
I'm surprised how many conservatives support it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top