Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Stop and Frisky?

This past election news cycle Stop and Frisk was the celebrated mantra of the New York City media circus. Though for the previous year the NYPD had reduced by half the citizens inconvenienced by the aggressively interpreted policing policy. Meaning again an election issue wasn't probed other than molding jargon and Stop and Frisk was just poetic sloganeering? 

When stop and frisk was always THE PROBLEM? Whether as a plain simple question of privacy or having a right to have something to hide? I support the police. Given the complexity of the Criminal Enterprise processing System and severity, the last people you want given grief are the police you're in contact with. I'm always cooperative and encourage that attitude. 

However public and police camaraderie is undermined by being put in the position of adversaries. When the law is even required to protect the guilty, authority and individual rights are being compromised by the head-strong acquisition of substantial authenticate-able statistics to afford the police leverage to use search as a preventive enforcement despite the following noble aspiration. 

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause

Because the police have the responsibility and authority to have suspicions as this Supreme Court Decision on the Fourth Amendment rules.

Terry vs. Ohio - Wikipedia
Terry v. Ohio392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."[1]

But the crux is what our adversarial society really means? Scapegoating our financially fueled, culturally flawed, Criminal Enterprise System? BS aside, even the purely innocent have confrontational incidents with police because cops have to be tougher than us, not friendlier. That's everyone's fault.

Crime is ambition's depths and controlling it is ambitious. Everyone should be for decriminalization and tackling crime's roots. Common sense should mean police familiar with their neighborhoods have always known and acted on the suspicious. But the issue of Stop and Frisk is a deeper problem than issues of public familiarity or social peace when the nitpicking of the Criminal Industrial Enterprise System just scratches crime's surface and isn't justice. Still, we should all be in awe of the profoundly noble policing profession.
Civility Is Contagious, Dag Gum It

The revolutionary Hövding AIRBAG helmet for CYCLISTS

Well here's to my having knee-jerk sensitivity to bike prejudice. The webzine Jalopnik reviewed this new product and threw in That Attitude. 
"Regardless of how wrong they are about discounting cars in the future, they've done a pretty impressive job with the design and engineering of this, and I wish them all sorts of luck."

The issue isn't cars but safety and respect. So for good measure from the other side of the coin the "Throw The Book At Em" crowd finally landed their sarcastic lament as an Editorial Title

Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists? 
in The New York TimesNov. 9 
by Daniel Duane of Men's Journal

Inspiring November 11th's thoroughly reasonable critical review of the Time's essay's bias by celebrity culture critic, The Bike Snob
  Shafted Again Bike Snob NYC 
Street Etiquette Soapbox View, Oct 17 Soapbox View/searchbikes
It's to be appreciated the U.S. Navy & Marines can fulfill our destinies in the Philippines!


And as a saying goes, kudos to
My Fox Orlando's exposé of the socialist conspiracy fixing bicycles for free (tuition) Monday thru Thursday 1-5 PM at the
University of Central Florida
Speaking of Russian Art? Monday, November 11th
Pyotr Pavlensky was arrested after being treated at a clinic (Picture: Reuters)
C. M. FThe inevitability of hearing of this from you, Joe Hurley, was at least 98%. I don't want to read about it. But there's just too many unanswered questions to just walk away.
C. M. F. Huh. Balls nailed to the road by the state certainly has meaning for cab drivers.
Joe Hurley Unanswered questions, indeed. Was the nail galvanized?
C. M. F. Looks like one of those deals where once he got started he can't stop. Top this? I think he found his Mt. Everest.
C. M. F. Mr. Hurley, may I have permission to use your name and our thread comments in a Soapbox View. 
Joe Hurley If the reputation of the Soapbox View can withstand the hit, feel free.
Joe Hurley ...Mr. Fraser.
C. M. F. I'm supposed to aim for the extremes of free speech is my excuse. Because my first instinct is not use it so, please have the last word, while I go out on a limb, Mr. Hurley ...
Joe Hurley Well... this guy has hit the nail on the head, when it comes to "the extremes of free speech".
Joanna Hurley Bimonte I would have just left him there.
Masha Gessen
The New York Times

The Soapbox View Satirical Twist pursuing 
Twin Legacies 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your participation.