ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th November 2012, 04:55 PM   #321
Pope130
Graduate Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,175
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Maybe you could explain to people that you are trying to get guns off the streets and save lives. They might understand.
Sure, just explain to them that they look like gangsters, probably carry illegal weapons and need to be searched and disarmed in support of the general good. How could anyone object to that?
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 05:05 PM   #322
Delvo
Philosopher
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,074
Great, so now you've got cops not only being given explicit orders to make up excuses to illegally and unconstitutionally harass anybody they don't like without any actual reason to do so, with the goal of illegally and unconstitutionally stealing so-called "contraband" from them which isn't contraband, which is guaranteed to set off a tremendous rise in violence and take a huge chunk out of public confidence/trust in the government(s)... and you want to top it off by telling those same cops to try to justify their actions to their victims while in the process of victimizing them, by starting political debates with them on the spot.

To get the full effect you're apparently after here, you should also try adding having the fire departments go around torching certain kinds of people's houses and having medical personnel give a percentage of certain kinds of patients lethal injections.
Delvo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 07:11 PM   #323
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Do you have to arrest them to search them and take their guns though?
Not technically, but you do have to have at MINIMUM, reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or what have you.

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I thought the "fruit of the poison tree" deal stopped prosecution but the cops get to keep any contraband (in this case guns) found.
Mostly correct. FOTPT prevents the courts from charging you with a crime, if the original reason they stopped you is deemed illegal.

Basically, if the cop stopped me for a "broken tag light" and found that I was in possession of weed, arrested me, and charged me, If I could prove that I in fact DIDN'T have a broken tag light, and had no justification for stopping me, the weed possession would have to be thrown out.

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
If the purpose is to get illegal guns off the streets, that might be enough.
Maybe. I'm ok with getting illegal guns off the street. However, I am not ok with violating anyone's legal rights, no matter who they are.

Last edited by triforcharity; 20th November 2012 at 07:12 PM.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 07:20 PM   #324
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
You do not need to toss your bill of rights aside to enable the police to do widescale searching of gang members to recover guns and arrest those who illegally possess them.
I've hilited the part that includes tossing aside the 4th Amendment at minimum. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to just stopping random people on the street and searching them. The 4th prevents "UNREASONABLE" and warrant-less searches.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I can understand you defending law abiding citizens posessing guns, not the criminals.
Even criminals have the right to be free from unreasonable searches. It's kinda what this country was founded on.

Also, how do you decipher between the criminals, and someone like myself, who "looks" like a criminal at times......
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 07:22 PM   #325
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Guess what, I do understand what you're saying. What I'm trying to express to you is that the end (getting guns out of evil hands) doesn't justify the means (treating the Constitution like toilet paper).

If we want to do battle with the Constitution, the place to do that is through the means provided in that document. Giving police officers license to ignore the law is not the right way to do that.
I also agree 100%.

I'm all for getting illegal guns off the street. However, I don't like the idea of violating the 4th amendment to do it.

Even Jeffery Dahmer had rights.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 07:26 PM   #326
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I also think that how stop searches are conducted is important. A non aggressive approach, explaining why the search is being carried out and a thanks for those who cooperated and nothing was found goes a long way to reducing animosity.

Here in the US, again, not sure what has you so confused about the 2nd and 4th Amendments, but it's ILLEGAL to force someone to submit to a search against their will, WITHOUT probable cause.

ILLEGAL!!

Violating someone's constitutional rights is NOT right, no matter WHAT the ends.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 07:40 PM   #327
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,189
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Targeted intelligence lead searches is what I am arguing for. I think we are at risk of arguing on the semantics only.

The statistics from the NYT have not been fully examined. They take no account of how stop searches deter crime and have not looked at how well they are being targetted at present. To be a measured success you need to accept that even targetted searches will have a declining rate of success as people are deterred from carrying drugs, guns or whatever. Then you also need to keep going or else if the police stop searches people will go back to carrying again.
Actually they have, and the NYC program is nothing more than wasted resources and a political slogan.

You might want to read the NYT article that reported the total number of firearms seized during sop day-to-day policing v. the number of firearms seized during SaF.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 07:40 PM   #328
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Not so much random as gang members.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0fAXOGggTd...00/tattoo1.jpg

Please click the link. This shows exactly what's wrong with your idea.

How do you separate the BG from the good guys?

ETA: BTW, that's not me. However, I don't look that far off. I've got "sleeves" just like that.

Last edited by triforcharity; 20th November 2012 at 07:45 PM.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 08:00 PM   #329
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,628
Not to mention the people most likely to disagree to a search will be armed and this puts our police in WAYYYY too much day to day danger for my liking.
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2012, 09:17 PM   #330
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,461
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0fAXOGggTd...00/tattoo1.jpg

Please click the link. This shows exactly what's wrong with your idea.

How do you separate the BG from the good guys?

ETA: BTW, that's not me. However, I don't look that far off. I've got "sleeves" just like that.
There must be some way they tell; someone earlier was citing gang member statistics. How do the cops know what to report as gang related if there they can't distinguish gang members from not gang members?

I'm not sure what that picture is trying to show. Is it a doctor who looks like a gang member or a gang member who looks like a doctor or just some guy with tattoos?

The point isn't really to separate bad guys from good guys anyhow. The point is to remove illegal guns from the streets. If someone has a gun and has a license or whatever is needed, the cops wouldn't take it. If it's an illegal gun, the cops would take it. If there was no gun at all, there wouldn't be anything to confiscate.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 03:09 AM   #331
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 8,128
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
The logical error is known as cherry picking. Chicago and a few other cities have high rates of gang related firearms homicides, but these cities may not be representative of firearms homicides in the entire nation. To find that we need to look at national data.
It may be a logical error when having a debate, but cherry picking is exactly what is needed to get criminals separated from their guns. You cherry pick the worst city, then the worst district, the worst streets and then the most likely gun carriers based on past arrests and intelligence as to who is presently fighting whom.

Then you go out with a whole load of information that gives you a reasonable cause to search the Bloods and the Crips presently operating on 4th and 5th street of the Heights district of Chicago (that is a made up example). But further to that you don't just randomly search any old Blood or Crip, you search the ones who have kept cruising past a house where a sworn enemy lives. Or you get intelligence they have taken to transporting guns in the bottom of innocent looking shopping bags, so you search the ones carrying shopping bags.

No one here seems to have a problem with properly targeted searches and everyone has a problem with random searches.

I also do not think anyone here should have a problem with negative searches, since as the tactic stops the gangs from having guns, it has worked. That is so long as you can show searches have reduced crime.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 03:14 AM   #332
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 8,128
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
There must be some way they tell; someone earlier was citing gang member statistics. How do the cops know what to report as gang related if there they can't distinguish gang members from not gang members?

I'm not sure what that picture is trying to show. Is it a doctor who looks like a gang member or a gang member who looks like a doctor or just some guy with tattoos?

The point isn't really to separate bad guys from good guys anyhow. The point is to remove illegal guns from the streets. If someone has a gun and has a license or whatever is needed, the cops wouldn't take it. If it's an illegal gun, the cops would take it. If there was no gun at all, there wouldn't be anything to confiscate.
The police build up intelligence of who is in what gang, what their colours are, where they operate from, their tags, habits, leaders, foot soldiers, tactics, the cars they are presently driving.

How successful they are at targeting is down to how well they turn the intelligence into policing activity.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 08:38 AM   #333
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,975
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The police build up intelligence of who is in what gang, what their colours are, where they operate from, their tags, habits, leaders, foot soldiers, tactics, the cars they are presently driving.

How successful they are at targeting is down to how well they turn the intelligence into policing activity.
You seem to be making a fundamental error in thinking that being a member of a gang is illegal. It's not. Whilst knowing all that you describe may allow police to identify criminals, even all of it together isn't enough to justify a warrant-less search and/or seizure without probable cause to believe a crime is being committed.

I have the freedom to be an identified gang leader walking with my gang colors through a neighborhood where other gang members are dealing crack and carrying guns, and none of that is enough to allow a police officer to search my person unless s/he reasonably believes that I am actually committing a crime.

I would also note that such an illegal search - even if the police officer could conduct the search without consequences - finding a gun wouldn't even necessarily take it out of circulation. For example, if I legally own a handgun but don't have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, the police don't get to keep that weapon if I was illegally searched. They'll have to give me back my property because owning a gun isn't illegal, and they can't prove I was carrying it concealed thanks to their illegal search.
__________________
Where am I going to find a piece of metal? Here...in space...at this hour?
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 08:58 AM   #334
AlBell
Philosopher
 
AlBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
You can all cheer up. Obama has finessed a way around the Constitution/Bill Of Rights.

http://townhall.com/columnists/susan...e_un_and_obama
__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Stay well back: I'm allergic to Stupid.
AlBell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 09:02 AM   #335
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 8,128
I am well aware that being in a gang is not illegal. I am well aware owning a gun is not illegal.

I am showing how the police can target the people who cause so much of the gun violence and crime in general, so reducing criticism of random searches and increasing the success rate with such searches. I have also shown how searching can appear random when it is not, as once the message gets home not to carry a weapon, the number of positive searches will drop.

When you say reasonable belief a crime is being committed, we have laws against carrying of knives, offensive weapons and unlicensed guns. I take it you do as well.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 09:05 AM   #336
lobosrul
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,094
Originally Posted by AlBell View Post
You can all cheer up. Obama has finessed a way around the Constitution/Bill Of Rights.

http://townhall.com/columnists/susan...e_un_and_obama
I have a hard time believing anything from a website with a pic of Ann Coulter on the top right corner, and that article is barely coherent. Is there anything to this? I've heard rumblings of this ATT before.
lobosrul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 09:20 AM   #337
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,975
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I am well aware that being in a gang is not illegal. I am well aware owning a gun is not illegal.

I am showing how the police can target the people who cause so much of the gun violence and crime in general, so reducing criticism of random searches and increasing the success rate with such searches. I have also shown how searching can appear random when it is not, as once the message gets home not to carry a weapon, the number of positive searches will drop.

When you say reasonable belief a crime is being committed, we have laws against carrying of knives, offensive weapons and unlicensed guns. I take it you do as well.
Ah, so "reducing criticism" is the goal. Keep the constitutional violations to the people who won't complain too loud and that makes them okay?

The bottom line is that my use of the word "random" in this connection only means searching without probable cause to do so. I don't care if said "random" searches are of likely criminals or not. You can call them "targeted" if you like that word, but that doesn't make them legal.

If getting guns off the street is the goal, there are legal ways to work towards that goal.
__________________
Where am I going to find a piece of metal? Here...in space...at this hour?
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 09:29 AM   #338
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,189
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I am well aware that being in a gang is not illegal. I am well aware owning a gun is not illegal.

I am showing how the police can target the people who cause so much of the gun violence and crime in general, so reducing criticism of random searches and increasing the success rate with such searches. I have also shown how searching can appear random when it is not, as once the message gets home not to carry a weapon, the number of positive searches will drop.

When you say reasonable belief a crime is being committed, we have laws against carrying of knives, offensive weapons and unlicensed guns. I take it you do as well.
Yes, carrying just about anything concealed on your person with the intent to use it as a weapon - even in self defense - can be a crime.

The fact that the law exists and a crime may be committed doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion that the crime is being committed by a given individual absent articulable facts.

An officer in a local agency decided on his own to approach individuals that were carrying various types of folding knives in what constitutes legal carry in California, would ask to see the knife, and after the individual handed it over the officer would inform the individual that they could be arrested for a felony...or they could surrender the knife. Most people took the latter choice, and the officer would confiscate the knife...which he never turned in or reported as required.

Evidently this went on for sometime until an individual faced with the choice balked, the officer bullied the guy, and the individual in question called his bluff 100%, demanded to speak with the officers patrol supervisor...The knife thief boogied.

The individual had taken note of the officers badge # and name, and went directly to Dept. HQ and filed a complaint.

The officer was eventually fired behind the whole ugly mess, which imo he was lucky to not have been charged with theft under color of authority.

Moral of the story - absent articulable RS and probable cause, American LEO's do not have the legal right to stop and search anyone.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 09:35 AM   #339
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,461
Is there something like a gun-sniffing dog a cop could walk around with to get probable cause?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 09:42 AM   #340
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,189
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Is there something like a gun-sniffing dog a cop could walk around with to get probable cause?
An explosive detection K9's smells nitrates, which can be explosive material or gunpowder or the residue of same, but there's already a slough of controversy over the use of drug detection K9's.

I doubt any use of explosive K9's woukld be different.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 10:32 AM   #341
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8,770
I realize I'm late to this thread, but I just had to come in an stick up for our constitutional rights. I just love how liberals bring up these massacres, as if guns are the only way human beings murder one another. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The fact is James Holmes could have massacred all those kids in the theater with a crowbar. After all, despite having freaking BODYGUARDS Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed with a baseball bat, and Gandhi was assassinated with a shuriken. Does that mean we should ban ninja stars?? Please. Don't be ridiculous. If that Virginia Tech guy wanted to, he could have killed everyone in that building with nothing more than his bare fists, including himself.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 10:35 AM   #342
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 8,128
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Ah, so "reducing criticism" is the goal. Keep the constitutional violations to the people who won't complain too loud and that makes them okay?

The bottom line is that my use of the word "random" in this connection only means searching without probable cause to do so. I don't care if said "random" searches are of likely criminals or not. You can call them "targeted" if you like that word, but that doesn't make them legal.

If getting guns off the street is the goal, there are legal ways to work towards that goal.
No the goal is to reduce gun crime. Probable cause always applies. Targeted searches make them more productive. What legal methods, bearing in mind searching with probable cause is legal, would you use?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 11:14 AM   #343
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,975
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I realize I'm late to this thread, but I just had to come in an stick up for our constitutional rights. I just love how liberals bring up these massacres, as if guns are the only way human beings murder one another. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The fact is James Holmes could have massacred all those kids in the theater with a crowbar. After all, despite having freaking BODYGUARDS Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed with a baseball bat, and Gandhi was assassinated with a shuriken. Does that mean we should ban ninja stars?? Please. Don't be ridiculous. If that Virginia Tech guy wanted to, he could have killed everyone in that building with nothing more than his bare fists, including himself.
Your argument is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. Massacring large numbers of people in a short time (Holmes killed 12 and injured 58 more) with a crowbar would be virtually impossible unless people just lined up to be beaten. Intervening against someone with even a knife is a lot safer than intervening against someone with a gun.

As for assassinations, where are you getting your information? Both King and Gandhi (both Mohandas and Indira) were killed with guns, the former a long rifle and the latter (Mohandas) a pistol.

ETA: My bad if you were just kidding around, Cain.
__________________
Where am I going to find a piece of metal? Here...in space...at this hour?

Last edited by Babbylonian; 21st November 2012 at 11:23 AM.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 11:20 AM   #344
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,271
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Your argument is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
Cain's argument was clearly intended as satire.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 11:22 AM   #345
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,975
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Cain's argument was clearly intended as satire.
Yeah, I'm realizing that the more I think about it. Without a smiley, it can be hard to separate the jokes from the full-on nutters.
__________________
Where am I going to find a piece of metal? Here...in space...at this hour?
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 11:39 AM   #346
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,628
indeed, one of the flaws of the forum method of discussion is that satire can be missed at times.
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 12:33 PM   #347
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,271
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
No the goal is to reduce gun crime. Probable cause always applies. Targeted searches make them more productive. What legal methods, bearing in mind searching with probable cause is legal, would you use?
I don't see anything wrong with searching for illegal guns based on tips from the public. But do see a lot wrong with giving police a blank check like we did in the bad old days.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 05:22 PM   #348
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,461
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I realize I'm late to this thread, but I just had to come in an stick up for our constitutional rights. I just love how liberals bring up these massacres, as if guns are the only way human beings murder one another. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The fact is James Holmes could have massacred all those kids in the theater with a crowbar. After all, despite having freaking BODYGUARDS Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed with a baseball bat, and Gandhi was assassinated with a shuriken. Does that mean we should ban ninja stars?? Please. Don't be ridiculous. If that Virginia Tech guy wanted to, he could have killed everyone in that building with nothing more than his bare fists, including himself.
Good point. We shouldn't ban all those things, at least not all at once. What we could do is start with the most dangerous stuff on the list and ease off once we see how well it's working. Which do you think we should ban first? We've already got bans on bombs, missiles and crew serviced machine guns. What should be next?

It's probably better to pick a popular weapon class to get the maximum restriction for the minimum amount of legislation, don't you think?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 05:47 PM   #349
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5,818
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Which do you think we should ban first? We've already got bans on bombs, missiles and crew serviced machine guns.
No we don't, not in the USA anyway. There are sometimes crew served machine guns for sale here; http://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx You can also check out the classified ads at Subguns.com and GunsAmerica.com You can find a few belt feds here at times; http://www.autoweapons.com/products/products.html

I have yet to see any bombs and missiles for sale on those sites, but I think as long as I fill out the ATF form 1, I can make one. The BATFE has never denied approval for any of my other applications, they would probably allow these as WA does not restrict them.

Expecting state governments to start out with the most dangerous guns to ban is like expecting them to ban guns as an effort to reduce crime. It doesn't work that way at all. They pick out guns and/or features they want to ban based on what will get them re-elected. Since many gun control bills are aimed at the law abiding person, they are not really interested in reducing crime, just placating people who do not like gun owners.

Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 21st November 2012 at 05:58 PM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 06:07 PM   #350
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
It may be a logical error when having a debate, but cherry picking is exactly what is needed to get criminals separated from their guns. You cherry pick the worst city, then the worst district, the worst streets and then the most likely gun carriers based on past arrests and intelligence as to who is presently fighting whom.
And none if which raises to the threshold of probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Then you go out with a whole load of information that gives you a reasonable cause to search the Bloods and the Crips presently operating on 4th and 5th street of the Heights district of Chicago (that is a made up example).
Again, none of which meets the standard of PC or RS. No crime has been committed, and no evidence that a crime will be committed.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
But further to that you don't just randomly search any old Blood or Crip, you search the ones who have kept cruising past a house where a sworn enemy lives.

No PC or RS. Cruising is not illegal.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Or you get intelligence they have taken to transporting guns in the bottom of innocent looking shopping bags, so you search the ones carrying shopping bags.
Which IS a crime, if they're carrying them concealed, or illegally in posession of them. However, profiling is not allowed, typically.

However, it may be enough to get a warrant.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
No one here seems to have a problem with properly targeted searches and everyone has a problem with random searches.
Yes, as it violates our Constitutional rights. Random searches for no reason other than I look a certain way, is wrong.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I also do not think anyone here should have a problem with negative searches, since as the tactic stops the gangs from having guns, it has worked.
Negative searches? Meaning searches that come up empty?

I have a problem with any mass targeted search that is not justified by law.

WRT: this tactic stopping gangs from having guns, I'd love to see a citation for such.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
That is so long as you can show searches have reduced crime.
Citation needed.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 06:45 PM   #351
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,461
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
No we don't, not in the USA anyway. There are sometimes crew served machine guns for sale here; http://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx You can also check out the classified ads at Subguns.com and GunsAmerica.com You can find a few belt feds here at times; http://www.autoweapons.com/products/products.html

I have yet to see any bombs and missiles for sale on those sites, but I think as long as I fill out the ATF form 1, I can make one. The BATFE has never denied approval for any of my other applications, they would probably allow these as WA does not restrict them.

Expecting state governments to start out with the most dangerous guns to ban is like expecting them to ban guns as an effort to reduce crime. It doesn't work that way at all. They pick out guns and/or features they want to ban based on what will get them re-elected. Since many gun control bills are aimed at the law abiding person, they are not really interested in reducing crime, just placating people who do not like gun owners.

Ranb
Well, with that new round of information (thank you), I will suggest we start by stopping and frisking gang members to see if they have any missiles or crew-serviced machine guns on them. Only if this first policy works should we even consider looking for handguns.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 10:59 PM   #352
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5,818
Someone is forgetting to use their irony/satire icon; a real necessity on this forum.

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2012, 11:48 PM   #353
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,477
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I am well aware that being in a gang is not illegal. I am well aware owning a gun is not illegal.

I am showing how the police can target the people who cause so much of the gun violence and crime in general, so reducing criticism of random searches and increasing the success rate with such searches. I have also shown how searching can appear random when it is not, as once the message gets home not to carry a weapon, the number of positive searches will drop.
I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the "logic" here.

I mean, maybe you should write a letter to the LAPD, and let them know that if they started doing more random searches of gang members, they could really cut down on gang violence.

I'm sure they'll be pleased to learn that while they thought they were doing everything they possibly could to combat gang violence in LA, they were actually overlooking a simple and obvious step they could take today. If only they were more keenly aware of the UK's superior attitude towards firearms!
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 04:08 AM   #354
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 8,128
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
And none if which raises to the threshold of probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion.



Again, none of which meets the standard of PC or RS. No crime has been committed, and no evidence that a crime will be committed.




No PC or RS. Cruising is not illegal.



Which IS a crime, if they're carrying them concealed, or illegally in posession of them. However, profiling is not allowed, typically.

However, it may be enough to get a warrant.



Yes, as it violates our Constitutional rights. Random searches for no reason other than I look a certain way, is wrong.



Negative searches? Meaning searches that come up empty?

I have a problem with any mass targeted search that is not justified by law.

WRT: this tactic stopping gangs from having guns, I'd love to see a citation for such.



Citation needed.
You always need probable cause. That is different from targetting which is a means of getting the right people more often. So you target your probable cause searches. You do not do random searches. I do not see why you have a problem with that, I suspect your problem is more with it is me that is arguing it.

It works if you want it to

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/c...crime.19134633

But it is not just down to stop and search. It involves the whole of the CJ system where there is publicity of a crackdown, stop searches, stiffere sentences

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17578159
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 04:11 AM   #355
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 8,128
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the "logic" here.

I mean, maybe you should write a letter to the LAPD, and let them know that if they started doing more random searches of gang members, they could really cut down on gang violence.

I'm sure they'll be pleased to learn that while they thought they were doing everything they possibly could to combat gang violence in LA, they were actually overlooking a simple and obvious step they could take today. If only they were more keenly aware of the UK's superior attitude towards firearms!
Read what I have said about targeted searches and the need for probable cause. I have not been arguing for random searches.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 06:23 AM   #356
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
You always need probable cause. That is different from targetting which is a means of getting the right people more often.
Again, there's nothing wrong with having information, (anonymous reports, etc) and acting on that information. Nothing at all. That falls under PC.

What you suggested in your previous post, most of it doesn't rise to the standard in the US.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
So you target your probable cause searches. You do not do random searches.
You've said this a few times, and then revert back to your original stance of illegal searches.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I do not see why you have a problem with that, I suspect your problem is more with it is me that is arguing it.
I have no problem with legal, PC searches. None. I encourage them.
As an avid gun owner, and supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I am all for getting the fools who break the law off the street. However, I won't sacrifice ANYONE'S rights to accomplish that.


Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
There's already law on the books similar to that. For instance, in Florida, we have the 10-20-Life law.

It's simple.

Commit a felony with a handgun or another firearm, automatic 10 years if convicted. Fire that weapon, if nobody is hurt, automatic 20 years.
If you hit someone with that bullet, if they live or die doesn't matter, automatic life in prison.

I wouldn't be opposed to harsher penalties for felons who posses firearms, as they are the ones who make legit gun owners like myself look bad.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
But it is not just down to stop and search. It involves the whole of the CJ system where there is publicity of a crackdown, stop searches, stiffer sentences

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17578159
Stop searches? You mean random searches? NYC has a "stop and frisk" program, and it's failed miserably.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 06:35 AM   #357
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,189
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Read what I have said about targeted searches and the need for probable cause. I have not been arguing for random searches.
You might want to refer to what I posted as well - absent articulable RS and probable cause, American LEO's do not have the legal right to stop and search anyone.

American LEA's can't wave a magic wand and declare individuals or groups subject to search.

"Targeted searches" may be legal in the UK. They are not legal in the U.S.

I can relate a couple of examples - L.A.P.D.wholesale searches of concert goers searching for drugs, and an agency that stopped and searched every M.C. club member (Hell's Angels, etc) attending a bike run.

Every arrest that resulted from those two examples was eventually thrown out, and in the case of the searches of club members, the agency faced a civil action and settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Locally, during the course of an actual warrant service, an agency overstepped it's bounds in seizing property, and shot three dogs as well, $990,000,00 settlement:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1444930.html

Your understanding of the regulations regarding RS and PC as it relates to American law is flawed. You may be 100% correct wrt UK law, but UK law isn't applicable here.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 06:52 AM   #358
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 8,128
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
......


Stop searches? You mean random searches? NYC has a "stop and frisk" program, and it's failed miserably.
I do not mean random searches. Random searches are illegal and pointless. Get it out of your head that when I say search, stop search or anything like that I mean random. I do not.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 06:53 AM   #359
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,424
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
I would also note that such an illegal search - even if the police officer could conduct the search without consequences - finding a gun wouldn't even necessarily take it out of circulation. For example, if I legally own a handgun but don't have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, the police don't get to keep that weapon if I was illegally searched. They'll have to give me back my property because owning a gun isn't illegal, and they can't prove I was carrying it concealed thanks to their illegal search.
The charges may well get thrown out in court, but you certainly won't get your gun back.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2012, 06:59 AM   #360
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 8,128
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
You might want to refer to what I posted as well - absent articulable RS and probable cause, American LEO's do not have the legal right to stop and search anyone.

American LEA's can't wave a magic wand and declare individuals or groups subject to search.

"Targeted searches" may be legal in the UK. They are not legal in the U.S.

I can relate a couple of examples - L.A.P.D.wholesale searches of concert goers searching for drugs, and an agency that stopped and searched every M.C. club member (Hell's Angels, etc) attending a bike run.

Every arrest that resulted from those two examples was eventually thrown out, and in the case of the searches of club members, the agency faced a civil action and settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Locally, during the course of an actual warrant service, an agency overstepped it's bounds in seizing property, and shot three dogs as well, $990,000,00 settlement:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1444930.html

Your understanding of the regulations regarding RS and PC as it relates to American law is flawed. You may be 100% correct wrt UK law, but UK law isn't applicable here.
I have at no point said random searches are right, lawful or the the way to go in the UK or the US. At no point have I thought the US police could do random searches.

When you say targeted searches are illegal in the USA, do you really mean that the US police are not allowed to gather intelligence on who is carrying weapons and they go and find them and search them? Do you mean the US police are not allowed to look at crime trends and concentrate resources in high crime areas? Do you mean if there has been a gang incident and you find members of one gang gathered outside another gangs house, you do not have probable cause to search them?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.