- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Surveillance is fine, you want to cross state lines, you need to get the permission of the state you are invading.
I am troubled by the idea of the NYPD conducting recconnaissance missions and stings, in other cities & states, without the consent of the local police & Mayor.
And the fact that Ray Kelly justifies this by discussing arrests made...and NOT any convictions...suggests that the operations have been fruitless.
It would be a good idea, and would send a strong message, if Christie or one of the Mayors in Jersey filed charges with the DA. Bloomy needs to come down to Earth.
Didn't you argue in support of his AZ gun stings?
would someone please point out what is disgusting about law enforcement performing legal surveillance in an effort to prevent covert action against our citizens
the police of New York City have no jurisdiction to set up operations in another city, let alone another state.
its highly inappropriate for them to be doing such things, without the consent of the local authorities.
one could even argue that any information gathered from such operations, are inadmissable in court. Imagine the egg on the face of the NYPD, if they arrest a big-time terrorist, only to have the charges tossed out because the operation is deemed illegal.
are the potential terrorists going to be restricted to a particular jurisdiction - the one in which they are planning to attack? if so, then you concern is legitimate. if not, then your alarm is without any prudent basis...
i believe you will agree that terrorists are not limited to a particular jurisdiction to inflict their harm. so, why is it found reasonable to restrict the ability of our police to stop their terrorist actions when those actions occur outside a particular jurisdictionwhat part of the words NEW YORK Police Department, don't you understand?
why is this believed to be necessary?the fact is, there are perfectly legal and legitimate ways for cross-border police investigations to take place. They involve cooperation & coordination.
that very rich man is also very smart. he recognizes that his ass will be on the line to answer to his constituents if it is learned that his police were able to ferret out terrorist activity but stopped their interdiction because the terrorists crossed the NYC border into another jurisdictionhowever, Bloomberg & Ray Kelly, seem to think they are above all that. I can understand why Bloomy feels that way, as he is very rich man and therefore feels he can do whatever the **** he wants and get whatever the **** he wants.
Surveillance is fine, you want to cross state lines, you need to get the permission of the state you are invading.
i believe you will agree that terrorists are not limited to a particular jurisdiction to inflict their harm. so, why is it found reasonable to restrict the ability of our police to stop their terrorist actions when those actions occur outside a particular jurisdiction...
why is it unreasonable to ask the NYPD to coordinate their efforts with the police that DO have jurisdiction?
there is a reason that these activities are termed "covert"
coloring within the lines as you insist will not aid their efforts. so, choose between process or results
the results that accrue when a covert operation does not expose its covert activities to interdict terrorist activitieswhat results?
tell us how many of that 40 have walked. until then, you have nothingNYPD Commissioner talked about more than 40 arrests...but no convictions.
looks like the results are actually 40 arrested for engaging in terrorist activitiesLooks like the results are nill.
please identify any such ruined fbi investigations. i am betting that is nothing but a fabrication on your part because you have an inability to defend your position in this threadOh, except for the possible FBI investigations that were ruined, because the NYPD thinks they can do whatever the **** they want, wherever they want, whenever they want.
...looks like the results are actually 40 arrested for engaging in terrorist activities...
here you go:looks like? says who?
where are you getting your info from?
to defend the program, Ray Kelly claims that more than 40 suspected terrorists have been arrested, due to this program.
no mention of convictions, of course. maybe cause there were none?
you mentioned the 40 arrestsI could just as easily say that they were arrested for suspcion of involvement in terrorist activities, and none of them were charged and they are ALL free.
trust me, if ANY of those arrests led to a conviction, Ray Kelly would have used it as propaganda to justify his operation.
the fact that they can't flaunt even ONE conviction, stemming from this operation, tells us the value & success of this operation.
...you mentioned the 40 arrests...
there is a reason that these activities are termed "covert"
coloring within the lines as you insist will not aid their efforts. so, choose between process or results
i believe you will agree that terrorists are not limited to a particular jurisdiction to inflict their harm. so, why is it found reasonable to restrict the ability of our police to stop their terrorist actions when those actions occur outside a particular jurisdiction
why is this believed to be necessary?
you want the police to interrupt terrorists while they are plotting their attacks or do you want them to expose their covert sources. choose one
that very rich man is also very smart. he recognizes that his ass will be on the line to answer to his constituents if it is learned that his police were able to ferret out terrorist activity but stopped their interdiction because the terrorists crossed the NYC border into another jurisdiction
i believe intercepting terrorists is more important that coloring between the lines, only because you have always colored between the lines and expect everyone else to do the same
it is that kind of mentality which exposes our society to the harm of terrorists. they exploit our rules against us. it's like the british pissing and moaning because the patriots refused to line up and fight according to the then accepted rules of war. they thought it was uncivil for those patriots to use guerrilla warfare against them, hiding and firing at their officers. notice which side prevailed. (hint: it was not the one that insisted on coloring within the lines)
So when a Newark cop puts two in the chest and one in the head of an NYPD under cover officer, You still will consider it "good policing"?
hence, the need for coordination between police departments.
One question, Thumder, does MYC or NY even have an anti terrorist law for Kelley to enforce? I'm asking because I do not know.
Well, from what I can tell, there is nothing illegal about what the NYC cops did. Can someone point it out please? Unethtical, discriminatory, maybe, but illegal? Not seeing it. Cops from any jurisdiction are not barred legally from surveilling potential suspects or persons of interest from any other jurisdiction. Tis true that there is a courtesy involved but nothing that I can see that mandates a police organization from practicing policing in another jurisdiction?
Tim-
well, first we have to see if there actions would be considered illegal, if done by a private citizen. if that's the case, then charges can be pressed.
however, if no laws were actually broken, and this is simply a matter of juridictional over-stepping, then perhaps states need to pass a law making it a crime for law enforcement from another state to conduct any investigation or surveillance in their state, without the knowledge and cooperation of the jurisdictionally relevant police department.
Why? If they make an arrest then sure...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?