Tag Archives: stop and frisk

Low information voters don’t miss all the news . . .

centernewsnetwork.com:

US District Court Judge Shiraz Scheindlin recently ruled that NYC’s stop-and-frisk policy, which has helped to dramatically reduce gun violence and crimes, is unconstitutional. Judge Scheindlin imposed draconian restrictions on the police and formerly “low information” voters are quite happy with the Judge:

“Thugs with guns think they’re the ones calling the shots on the streets in the wake of the anti-NYPD stop-and-frisk ruling.

“You can’t stop me! You can’t do that no more! There are new rules!” suspect Steven Sidbury, 21, allegedly yelled at officers as they approached him in crime-riddled East New York last week.”

. . . One source predicted that there will be more bloodshed in the streets as criminals fearlessly carry their weapons instead of stashing them somewhere — and fire in the heat of the moment.

“They’re going to carry their guns, and if they get into a fight, they’re going to shoot right away,’’ the source warned.

“Every single [perp] I have encountered is very happy about the ruling,’’ a Manhattan police source said.

“It is a very common thought now amongst perps that stop-question-and-frisk infringes on their rights to carry concealed guns.” 

You can be sure that Scheindlin and the pandering progressive politicians will refuse all responsibility for the coming NYC crime wave.

Bloomberg’s “arbitrary and capricious” dictates are not limited to cigarettes, soda and guns . . .

centernewsnetwork.com:

The New York Post recently reported on appellate argument over Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on large sugary drinks. The issue is whether the law, and its many exceptions and loopholes, is “arbitrary and capricious.”

One of the judges asked Bloomberg’s attorney whether a “7-Eleven on the same block could sell the same drink [that a bodega could not sell]?”

Bloomberg’s lawyer replied, “Maybe.” Sounds arbitrary and capricious to us.

The same can be said of Bloomberg’s dictates on smoking and guns. Conservatives have no problem condemning Bloomberg on these issues.

What conservatives avoid acknowledging, however, is that Bloomberg’s “stop and frisk” policing policy is similarly “arbitrary and capricious” despite its undeniable effectiveness in reducing violent street crime. The arguments offered to support “stop and frisk” are not appreciably different from those arguments suggesting that Obama’s NSA “Prism” surveillance program is just fine because it protects us from the terrorists despite its intrusiveness, and, ultimately, it’s unconstitutionality.

Conservatives must be careful not to casually accept limiting liberty for security when it seemingly only affects some “other” citizens or groups of citizens.