hi everyone this topics is on ID check , how do you think of ID check ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIS Is what one of the main ID check or so called spot-check

 

 

http://sgforums.com/forums/1480/topics/137805

 

 

http://www.sammyboy.com/archive/index.php/t-507.html

 

 

 

mainly one of the jobscope for singapore police is conducting ID check

 

their main target of spot checking ID is person with such

 

 

1. person with whole body full of tattoo

2. youths in group  6people and above

3. gangster looks

 

 

and they will keep a database of it .

 

 

 

so when any crimes happen at that time and that places , they will know who to check . and it can deter anyone who have the thought of commiting crime . sorry for my bad english . please see the link on what i am trying to say . thanks you

 

btw please vote :D

In the United States, the stop and frisk policy (Like the NYPDs) violates our 4th amendment rights. Therefore, they should be forbidden without probable cause.

In the United States, the stop and frisk policy (Like the NYPDs) violates our 4th amendment rights. Therefore, they should be forbidden without probable cause.

 

exactly you cannot stop a random person without probable cause...thats what they did in nazi germany

I'd say more in the Soviet Union. The Germans had/have respect for their citizens, unlike the US nowadays. 

The US is not a police state (yet - NYC is though), so that would not fly here, not to mention it's an intrusion into the lives of law abiding citizens.  You are presumed innocent in the US and this would be unreasonable search/seizure, which violates the 4th amendment of the US BIll of Rights.  A police database of all citizenry would scare the hell outta me.  The cops work for me, I want a database on all cops and government officials so I know where they live, how much they make and what the hell they are doing...what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.

 

Good day,

 

DrDetroit

Edited January 19, 201313 yr by drdetroit

In some areas of the UK, police are allowed to stop and search people if they fit the description of stereotypes known to commit crime, can be Asians, some blacks, Working Class youth, or a person in one of those descriptions doing something out of the ordinary (driving a posh car in a rough area because they could have stole it etc.)

 

It is an apparent response to gang warfare and terrorism.

Some people think it is a form of discrimination others think it is because those people are the most likely to commit the crimes.

 

Do they have this in America?

Yeah, it feels a bit... tight down here in NYC. I'm in Staten Island so nothing really happens here, I even live 3 blocks from the 123 precinct, but I heard its pretty bad up in the other boroughs. 

 

 

 

In some areas of the UK, police are allowed to stop and search people if they fit the description of stereotypes known to commit crime, can be Asians, some blacks, Working Class youth, or a person in one of those descriptions doing something out of the ordinary (driving a posh car in a rough area because they could have stole it etc.)

 

It is an apparent response to gang warfare and terrorism.

Some people think it is a form of discrimination others think it is because those people are the most likely to commit the crimes.

 

Do they have this in America?

 

New York City has the stop and frisk policy, where they can frisk anybody who even looks the wrong way

Edited January 19, 201313 yr by Marine831

Not sure where you're getting that it violates the 4th amendment. The Supreme Court has SPECIFICALLY said you can be detained on reasonable suspicion that you're involved in criminal activity, and then frisked on reasonable suspicion that you're armed (Terry v. Ohio) [note: "reasonable suspicion" is a well-defined standard which is less than "probable cause" - notably, it is the standard for a traffic stop].

EDIT: drdetroit, you have no idea what a police state is. None at all. Here's an ACTUAL story from a police state (the Soviet Union):

My best friend's parents were from the USSR. His father was born on March 8, 1953. Notably, this was 3 days after Stalin died. The country was officially in mourning. However, his grandparents were, naturally, happy - they had just had a kid.

They came very close to being thrown in prison. For being happy during a mourning period. Because they had had a kid. The only reason they weren't is that Stalin was no longer in power. If something like that had happened while he was still in charge, it would have ended very badly for them.

That's the scale of an actual police state situation. Don't even start trying to claim New York State is a police state. You are trivializing the term.

Edited January 19, 201313 yr by cp702

So, because the Supreme court says it's ok makes it constitutional? They don't get to decide the constitution, fortunately. 

So, because the Supreme court says it's ok makes it constitutional? They don't get to decide the constitution, fortunately. 

Actually, interpreting the Constitution is kind of their job.

Actually, interpreting the Constitution is kind of their job.

 

Who made that up? The constitution is a blanket law, it's not meant to be bent. 

I'm sorry, what? That's not how ANY laws work. EVER. Seriously. Literally the ENTIRE POINT of a judge is to interpret the laws, because that's how you apply them. You CANNOT apply a law of any sort without interpretation. Under ANY circumstances. YES, I need to shout this much about this.

Simple example: People have the right to free speech, right? What about when they are making death threats? That's speaking, right? If you try to blindly apply the Constitution, you can't make that illegal. And yet, it is a crime, and really should be a crime.

As for "who made that up": Have you ever taken a course on American government? First lesson: "There are three branches. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws".

Are these coming from the same places that teach the US is a democracy? I have no intention on arguing over this further. If you want to continue believing the government can undermine the constitution, it doesn't concern me, Ill be out of this country soon anyway.

Actually, the sources that say that judges interpret the law are sources that say that the US is a federal republic. Which it is.

I'm not saying something controversial here. Interpreting laws is what judges do. Above the trial level, they don't even consider evidence. All they do is interpret the law to see how it applies to the situation. That will be the case in every country.

If you say that the Supreme Court shouldn't interpret the Constitution, you go against the entire history of American government. That is a fact.

Oh, and by the way: If you reject constitutional interpretation, then your 4th amendment rights have absolutely no meaning to the New York state legal system. The Bill of Rights is only binding on the federal government, originally. It took Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th amendment to say that states have to pay attention to the whole Bill of Rights (the 14th Amendment explicitly requires due process and equal protection, but due process is a clause in the 5th Amendment - extending it to the whole Bill of Rights is actually done on a right-by-right basis, and it doesn't apply to all of them).

the supreme court's job is to make sure that any laws that are implemented don't violate the constitution. In order to determine if it does, the constitution must be interpreted. Who better to do that then the supreme court. Example- the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, which made it illegal for anyone to wear miltary decorations or medals that they did not earn. The Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional because it violated the first amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. In US v Alvarez, they interpreted that the first amendment said something similar to "people can say they earned it as long as they aren't saying it to gain something, or defraud." Thereby, they decided that the law could not be enforced by the government.

 

However, they also said that the first amendment also protects the right to free speech for people who want to "condemn" the people who wear medals that they did not earn.

 

So there you go. Also they determined in 2008 that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia. Also in 1903, SCOTUS (Supreme Court) determined that the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment meant that there were two parts of the militia- the National Guard, and the unorganized militia- every male of adult age capable of keeping and bearing a firearm, and that both parts were to be "regulated" in the terms of "equipped."

 

So yes, SCOTUS, along with every other Federal Court, has the duty to interpret the constitution.

And in 2010 in McDonald v. Chicago, SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment was "so fundamental to ordered liberty" that banning guns would automatically violate the requirement to give due process. That means that it gets incorporated to the states. Before that case, only the federal government had to worry about the Second Amendment; states could legally ban all guns if they so wished. DC v. Heller, the case that said that the Second Amendment is an individual right, only applied to the federal government - DC, as a federal district, has to obey any restrictions that Congress has to obey (for example, states don't need to use grand juries, but DC does), with the exception of the Tenth Amendment (while Congress can't pass a national law against murder [only if it affects the federal government, like if you kill an FBI agent], DC obviously has a law against murder).

Important note: Some of the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states. States don't need to use a grand jury in felony cases, they never need to have jury trials for lawsuits, they aren't prohibited from levying "excessive" fines, etc.

I believe the term to use would be "lawyered"

 

States historically have held power over the federal government, and that was the point of the whole revolution- to get rid of the oppressive giant national government that had tormented them. Only since about WWII has the federal government been able to really control what happens in each of the states, whether or not it's constitutional.

 

That doesn't mean that states can do whatever they want, because there's a supremacy clause in the constitution, plus most states ratified their own constitutions and modeled them after the US Constitution. 

The term for what?

And you're correct on the state constitutions. Before the 14th Amendment, states *could* theoretically ignore the Bill of Rights. That doesn't mean they did.

Also, post-Civil War was a lot of the expansion of federal power, and I think the explosion of federal power really started in the New Deal, not just post-WWII (though that is still "about WWII").

the term to shut that guy up is "lawyered" ha. 

 

I'm interested to see what cases come up after the government uses their infinite wisdom to protect us from guns.

In my country ( singapore )

 

we are to show our ID / IC to the police when requested by them  . we have no human right :(

 

 

please look at the link to see more advantage on it