Last edited by a moderator:
Stop and Frisk in Philly
- Thread starter legalizefreedom1776
- Start date
I want to comment but I will refrain except for these few things.
A. I think the cops push too much (and talk too much BS) but have to, due to the area.
B. I think the 2 dudes "know" more than they let on.
C. I don't think it was "good" stop. Just walking down the street, having talked to some dude (even if it is a known drug area). I think the LEO should have a little more RAS.
A. I think the cops push too much (and talk too much BS) but have to, due to the area.
B. I think the 2 dudes "know" more than they let on.
C. I don't think it was "good" stop. Just walking down the street, having talked to some dude (even if it is a known drug area). I think the LEO should have a little more RAS.
We're they ever detained or effectively detained(can't watch video right now)? Don't need RAS to simply ask questions or intimidate.
Stop and frisk, while a stupid policy easily used against minorities, is seemingly constitutional practice. Frisks are not legally searches, but to take an item off someone an officer needs reasonable belief the item is either contraband or a weapon.
I do wonder how we could change this practice to be unconstitutional or how to get stop and frisk classified as a search or detainment.
Last edited:
I couldn't listen to the whole thing.
Isn't an officer supposed to state why he is stopping a person not just "How do you know what we know?"
Isn't an officer supposed to state why he is stopping a person not just "How do you know what we know?"
Yeah they detained him. They snatched his ass and searched him.
Here is what we know.
1. 2 guys walking in a rough neighborhood in Philly and talking with a known drug dealer.
2. Cops stop the guys to ask questions and they start backing away from cops.
3. Cops frisk the guys to make sure they don't have weapons or contraband (typical behavior).
4. The guys don't know their own address or the street they live on.
5. Guys smart mouth the cops and are uncooperative when questioned.
I'm not sure I see a problem here. It seems the cops did what they needed to do.
1. 2 guys walking in a rough neighborhood in Philly and talking with a known drug dealer.
2. Cops stop the guys to ask questions and they start backing away from cops.
3. Cops frisk the guys to make sure they don't have weapons or contraband (typical behavior).
4. The guys don't know their own address or the street they live on.
5. Guys smart mouth the cops and are uncooperative when questioned.
I'm not sure I see a problem here. It seems the cops did what they needed to do.
If the guy to whom they were speaking was a KNOWN drug dealer, one would believe the police would be arresting him not detaining the guys walking down the street.
Walking away from a police officer is not reason to search or stop for that matter.
If talking to a suspected dealer is reason to search, The Fourth Amendment does not exist in certain neighborhoods.
Walking away from a police officer is not reason to search or stop for that matter.
If talking to a suspected dealer is reason to search, The Fourth Amendment does not exist in certain neighborhoods.
I think that would actually qualify as reasonable articulable suspicion.
I agree.
