Upload
Login or register

MuahahaOfLore

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 27
Date Signed Up:4/05/2010
Location:NJ USA
Stats
Content Ranking:#21
Comment Ranking:#129
Highest Content Rank:#6
Highest Comment Rank:#30
Content Thumbs: 599955 total,  642641 ,  42686
Comment Thumbs: 95604 total,  102657 ,  7053
Content Level Progress: 93.51% (9351/10000)
Level 345 Content: Sold Soul → Level 346 Content: Sold Soul
Comment Level Progress: 26.5% (265/1000)
Level 380 Comments: Arch Mage → Level 381 Comments: Arch Mage
Subscribers:123
Content Views:25953630
Times Content Favorited:44020 times
Total Comments Made:9080
FJ Points:463085
Favorite Tags: cat (2) | with (2)

latest user's comments

#142 - I've read your responses ansd appreciate your legal input. …  [+] (1 reply) 12 minutes ago on Trumper Comp59 0
User avatar
#146 - arachnofondler (8 minutes ago) [-]
To be honest, the vast majority of people don't. I didn't fully understand the differences until I started undergoing Criminal Justice classes. US law can be very confusing, difficult to understand, or outright infuriating.
#67 - No Look up terry stops  [+] (30 replies) 7 hours ago on Trumper Comp59 0
User avatar
#114 - defhood (3 hours ago) [-]
if you have to reach all the way back to 1968 to find legal precedent to search black people without a warrant, maybe you should do some SOUL searching too.
User avatar
#78 - defhood (4 hours ago) [-]
Yes. look up The Supreme Court.
User avatar
#82 - arachnofondler (4 hours ago) [-]
MuahahaOfLore is correct. I'm a criminal justice major. New York State judge ruled that NYPD's stop and frisk was "unconstitutional". Now you may think that's a slam dunk, however, written state laws are not to supersede federal laws. So, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling remains law of the land, because stop and frisk was deemed NOT a violation of the 4th amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio. Here's some reading material for you: www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1 and www.rt.com/usa/347666-scotus-stop-and-frisk/ (second one is as recent as June 2016).
User avatar
#84 - defhood (4 hours ago) [-]
it doesn't just violate the 4th. it also violates the 14th, because it was conclusively shown to unfairly target people of color.
User avatar
#85 - arachnofondler (4 hours ago) [-]
Maybe the stop the NYPD was conducting. I don't know how their practices were previous to 2013, but there is a very thin line between doing it the legal way, and illegal way. However we're still using U.S. Supreme Court rulings because they are the law of the land, and the only mention of the 14th amendment is: "The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere."

How nobody in the state of NY has argued against this blatant overstep of state power is beyond me. You can't exclude a law in one state that's enforced everywhere else. But then again NY is a liberal circlejerk shithole, so.
User avatar
#86 - defhood (4 hours ago) [-]
maybe they chose to uphold the spirit of the law, because stopping and frisking black people who look suspicious is shady as fuck?
User avatar
#87 - arachnofondler (4 hours ago) [-]
I mean, yeah it's shady to ONLY stop black people and frisk them. But I guarantee that it wasn't only "suspicious" black people that were being stopped. Anybody that looks suspicious will be, at the very least, stopped and talked to. Depending on your interaction with the officer they may frisk to determine their safety. But in New York City, the most populous city within the state, there is a larger percentage of black, or other minorities than white, and statistically, means that there would be a larger percentage of black and other minority people who will have interactions with police.

TL;DR I think because of the bigger minority populations, more minorities were stopped and they screamed racism.
User avatar
#89 - defhood (4 hours ago) [-]
as of 2010, new york was only 25% black. in 2010 police stoped and frisked over 600000 people. 86% were totally innocent, 53% were black, while only 9% were white (whites make up almost 45% of new yorks population).

www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data
User avatar
#90 - arachnofondler (3 hours ago) [-]
Makes me wonder where the officers were patrolling. If officers were only conducting beats in "ghettos", they would purposely drive that number up by wrongly stopping people.
User avatar
#92 - defhood (3 hours ago) [-]
www.nyclu.org/content/nypd-quarterly-reports

this page contains quarterly stop and frisk reports from various precincts in NYC.
User avatar
#95 - arachnofondler (3 hours ago) [-]
informative, but doesn't help when neither of us know the NYPD precincts in correlation to what's considered the "ghetto" areas. all i found was this map. 2015.padjo.org/files/images/tutorials/cartodb/red-choropleth-of-2009.png
User avatar
#97 - defhood (3 hours ago) [-]
idk dude, im not sure it really matters when 86% of these stops are unjustified, and obviously target such a hugely disproportionate segment of the population. im sure if we really broke down the numbers, they would in fact begin to skew in favor of your argument... yes, black neighborhood do tend to correlate with crime, but how does stopping innocent citizens and harassing them do anything to fix that, or help fix the black communities distrust of law enforcement?
User avatar
#98 - arachnofondler (3 hours ago) [-]
i get what you're saying, but that brings up way more issues than just the stop itself. it needs way more to fix, as well. better community outreach programs, better relations, etc.
User avatar
#138 - defhood (1 hour ago) [-]
As long as laws exist in america that allow law enforcement to unfairly target people of color, no amount of outreach is going to convince them they're not being oppressed and discriminated against. It needs to stop.
User avatar
#100 - defhood (3 hours ago) [-]
besides that, i still truly believe stop and frisk is a violation of peoples 4th amendment rights.
"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."
User avatar
#102 - arachnofondler (3 hours ago) [-]
I understand your point, but seeing it from the other side I disagree.
Stop and frisk is crucial to officer safety in stops. It lets the officer know if the person they're trying to talk to has a weapon to be used against the officer or otherwise injure other people. I don't see it as an "unreasonable search" because most officers do a pat down while conducting their stop on suspects anyway. I believe the Supreme Court ruled the way it did because they also didn't see it as unreasonable in the case they heard.
User avatar
#101 - defhood (3 hours ago) [-]
beyond just the letter of the law, I believe it is unamerican to empower the government to stop and search private citizens without warrant.
User avatar
#103 - arachnofondler (3 hours ago) [-]
Right, that's fine, and in that sense I agree. Any officer wishing to go into a home needs a warrant. That's it, no if ands or buts. However out on the street is a different matter.
User avatar
#104 - defhood (3 hours ago) [-]
"...The right of the people to be secure in their houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches..."
User avatar
#106 - arachnofondler (3 hours ago) [-]
I understand the 4th amendment fine, thanks.

I was referring to the fact that on the street, stop and frisk is still carried out, which is why it is a different matter than trying to go into someone's home.
User avatar
#142 - MuahahaOfLore (12 minutes ago) [-]
I've read your responses ansd appreciate your legal input.
People don't understand the low threshold of reasonable suspicion to stop and then having probable cause from a short stop to search.
User avatar
#146 - arachnofondler (8 minutes ago) [-]
To be honest, the vast majority of people don't. I didn't fully understand the differences until I started undergoing Criminal Justice classes. US law can be very confusing, difficult to understand, or outright infuriating.
User avatar
#111 - defhood (3 hours ago) [-]
Moderator Lester Holt: “Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men.”
Donald Trump: “No, you’re wrong. It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her. And our mayor, our new mayor [Bill de Blasio], refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it’s allowed.”
Holt: “The argument is that it’s a form of racial profiling.”
Trump: “No, the argument is that we have to take the guns away from these people that have them and they are bad people that shouldn’t have them.”

Donald just wants to take peoples guns away to ease the way for his police state takeover. its sad that Liberals are now the ones that have to defend the spirit of the constitution.
User avatar
#145 - arachnofondler (10 minutes ago) [-]
The original commentor***
User avatar
#144 - arachnofondler (10 minutes ago) [-]
The person who originally asked the question if stop and frisk was unconstitutional. Federally? No. In NY, for some reason, yes. And I don't think you understand how a frisk works. In the US, outside of NY, the officer gives you whatever you have back. Again, it's about officer safety. In NY, they confiscate everything because according to NY's fucked up laws, everything is inherently evil. I think what Donald was trying to say was that doesn't want to take everyone's guns away, but that criminal suspects should not have them in their possession, which is a fair opinion to have. I don't think he'd have so many Pro2A places/groups supporting him.

The argument could be made that Liberals aren't protecting the constitution and are the ones putting it into jeopardy. But I don't have the desire to make that argument. I've gotta go to work.
User avatar
#109 - defhood (3 hours ago) [-]
(for some reason i cant reply to your most recent comment)

That ruling is flawed, and will be overturned by the next federal supreme court justice.
User avatar
#141 - arachnofondler (15 minutes ago) [-]
Doubtful.
User avatar
#107 - defhood (3 hours ago) [-]
Definition of personal effects
: privately owned items (as clothing and jewelry) normally worn or carried on the person
User avatar
#108 - arachnofondler (3 hours ago) [-]
Again, that doesn't change the fact that stop and frisk is still accepted and practiced across the United States. 8 justices of the Supreme Court believed it did not violate the 4th amendment, and thus ruled to uphold the method.
#57 - Is it possible people believe he was born here because Obama d…  [+] (1 reply) 20 hours ago on Full Debate Analysis 0
User avatar
#61 - skorve (19 hours ago) [-]
"The document was almost immediately revealed to be a forgery. It purports to have been issued by the "Republic of Kenya", when in fact, such a state did not yet exist at the time of Obama's birth as indicated on the document (Kenya was a British Colony until 1963)."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Born_in_Kenya

I see nothing about Kenya claiming he was born there - though he did have dual-citizenship through his father, which Kenya revoked on his 23rd birthday.

My favorite part is all the people cited as saying you have to be physically born in the US to be president - which apparently a lot of people believed until Cruz was the concern. Hmmm.
#55 - So If i treat a Black guy like **** THEN treat the white guy l…  [+] (1 reply) 20 hours ago on Full Debate Analysis -1
User avatar
#56 - theism (20 hours ago) [-]
No but if you don't read comments it's retardation.
#52 - Except that he did the same thing to Ted Cruz. Again, how …  [+] (3 replies) 20 hours ago on Full Debate Analysis 0
User avatar
#53 - theism (20 hours ago) [-]
For one the Cruz comments came after the Obama comments. For another he had a vested interest in discrediting Cruz, Obama not so much.
User avatar
#55 - MuahahaOfLore (20 hours ago) [-]
So If i treat a Black guy like shit THEN treat the white guy like shit- its racism
User avatar
#56 - theism (20 hours ago) [-]
No but if you don't read comments it's retardation.