The Glade 4.0

I believe it is illegal in CA (which is foolishness, as age DOES affect decision making abilities), but not everywhere else.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

All of those articles, and pretty much all complaints about blacks supposedly being profiled are correllation-causation fallacy. Blacks are not more likely to be suspect because they are black but because they are more likely to be doing something suspicious.

There is no question that in some “contexts,” as Obama would put it, black males elicit heightened scrutiny. In some neighborhoods, shopkeepers do closely watch, if not actually trail, young black males who enter their stores. And there is also no question that being viewed with fear when you are free of any criminal intent is infuriating and can lead to a humiliating sense of being a second-class citizen. This is an experience that all Americans should regret.

But the overwhelming reason for such a reaction, where it exists, is astronomically higher rates of black crime. In New York City, blacks commit 70 percent of all robberies and 63 percent of all grand larcenies, though they are just 23 percent of the population; whites commit 4 percent of all robberies and a little over 10 percent of all grand larcenies, though they are 35 percent of the population. Every American city with a black population shows comparable disparities. In some “contexts,” black crime is even celebrated. Earsnot, a New York graffiti vandal glorified in the documentary Infamy, mocks the trusting retail managers who don’t follow him as he cases their stores for merchandise: “You have that customer-shopkeeper thing going on, and they have no idea that you’re stealing—no idea. Or, they know that you’re stealing, and they see you in there mad times, and they still can’t stop me because I’m so nice.” According to Infamy’s admiring producers, Earsnot and his crew “commit grand larceny” every day, a walking crime spree that has undoubtedly led many a floor supervisor to adopt exactly the defensive posture that Obama condemns.

The newly rechristened “bash mobs” that have been terrorizing pedestrians and workers in, among other locations, downtown Chicago, Washington, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles, are a black phenomenon, though a squeamish press shrinks from pointing that out. Someone who has been attacked by, or is simply the witness of, rampaging black teens is unlikely to be blasé if he later sees a group of rowdy black youth approaching. Obama may think that a heightened pulse rate or a tightened grip on a purse is an overreaction to such gratuitous violence, but it is an inevitable one. Here is a proposal: For a good five-year stretch, blacks bring their crime rate down to white and Asian levels. Once it becomes widely understood that blacks are no more likely to steal, rob, rape, or shoot than whites or Asians, we’ll see if blacks still elicit the defensive reactions that Obama alleges in elevators and department stores.[[

...Ta-Nehisi’s core point is that making such blanket warnings about an entire group of human beings is just dumb if you actually care about the safety of your kids. It puts the race/gender/age category before all other obvious contexts: neighborhood, street, school, college, inner city, distant suburb, daytime, night, crowded places, dark streets, and the actual observed behavior of the young black man.

Bull. Take NYC for example, since I happen to have the stats close to hand. Black people are about 7 times more likely than white people to be stopped by the NYPD under the stop-and-frisk program, and 88% of those stopped are released without arrest or charge. Let me say that again: 7 times more likely to be stopped; 9 out of 10 are completely innocent. And your explanation is that it's not racial profiling; it's just that black people (apparently even the 9 out of 10 that are completely innocent) tend to act suspiciously? Seriously?

Let's be clear, Stop and Frisk is a travesty against 4th Amendment rights.


Please continue.

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.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

If they're wrong about their "reasonable suspicion" 90% of the time, the "standard" under which "reasonable suspicion" is judged is so low as to be a joke.

The Fourth Amendment is hands down the most deliberate and clear of all the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The Constitutional standard for searches is by Warrant issued upon Probable Cause. The Fourth, in point of fact, explicitly DISALLOWS blanket searches.

These are not blanket searches. The 4th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches without a warrant, not all searches without a warrant. The courts have spoken on this issue. Move on.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

The Courts have spoken in recent years directly contrary to the stare decisis that keeps Roe v. Wade in place. The Fourth Amendment prohibits ALL searches without a warrant and ALL searches without specifically named parties, objects, and locations. How recent Courts read that Amendment is decidedly at odds with the Constitutional Law in place before Terry v. Ohio. We're still paying for Earl Warren's nonsense.

Weeks v. United States (1914) created the Exclusionary Rule. William Howard Taft, however, destroyed the Fourth Amendment effectively in Carroll v. United States (1925) by creating and allowing the automobile rule, from which ALL of Warren's Fourth Amendment nonsense stems. Were it not politically incorrect to rewrite the Warren Court's decisions, the Supreme Court would have reversed most of the Fourth Amendment rulings during Rehnquist's tenure.

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.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Weeks v. United States in 1914 was the first time the Supreme Court addressed the Fourth Amendment in any major way. It created the Exclusionary Rule and clarified the scope of the Fourth Amendment. Stare decisis keeps Roe v. Wade in place; it was, in point of fact, the legal concept Rehnquist used for NOT overturning Roe v. Wade on multiple occasions. The concept of stare decisis holds that because the Court had not reversed or altered or limited the decision in Roe v. Wade, that its cultural and social prevalence denied the Court standing to do so. The time frame between Roe v. Wade and the first invocation of stare decisis in its maintenance was right at a decade. Weeks v. United States should still stand in its entirety, but it does not, largely because of Carroll v. United States and Taft's decision. In fact, Taft's decision is where the Courts justified Terry Stops and found precedent for them.

And on this matter, the Courts have been wrong since Ohio v. Terry.

The language here hasn't been altered by Amendment. And pursuant to even John Marshall's Court, the Supreme Court does not have grounds to rewrite the Constitution. This sentence is extremely didactic. It denies warrantless searches and provides the grounds for warrants to be issued. Reasonable suspicion isn't in there. And, amusingly, that's how every court and every law in our country applied the Fourth Amendment until Carroll v. United States.

The Weeks decision was rendered because of the use of illegally obtained evidence in courts. And since Weeks, the Federal government has used every mechanism it has to erode the Fourth. Reasonable suspicion and Terry Stops are an affront to the Fourth 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.[1]

There is no such thing as the courts being wrong.

So when one court overrules another court's decision... what does that mean?

So when one court overrules another court's decision... what does that mean?

That the system is doing what it's supposed to be doing and evolving.

The Constitution is not an evolving document.

200 years of empirical evidence indicates the contrary.