The MSM lies, that’s bad. What’s worse is that the readers let them. Latif Williams murdered a Trinity University student during a carjacking. The suspect is seventeen and already an accomplished career criminal. The cops keep arresting him and the Soros backed District Attorney keeps dismissing the charges. Williams got the message. He does not have to suffer the consequences of his actions.
I don’t really care that Philadelphia is experiencing the highest number of homicides seen in years. The people of Philadelphia created the circumstances and they can live with them. The situation in Philadelphia is similar to the experience of Franz Reichelt (16 October 1878 – 4 February 1912). Who is he?
Franz was a true liberal. He took a faulty premise, coupled it with good intentions and finished with poor execution. He is now remembered as a guy that pursued a dream and failed, rather than a fucking idiot. But I digress.
This isn’t about Soros backed DA’s in cities like Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco and Austin. This is about the lies perpetrated by the MSM. No, the thing that stuck me about this whole mess is a quote by one of the victim’s friends, (below)
There’s a twist to the Williams case. His murder victim was, according to a friend, a “devout Marxist” who “would not want his death to be used to push any sort of right-wing pro-police agenda such as stop and frisk.”
Power Line Blog
Joseph Gobbels couldn’t have said it better.
The MSM, liberals and fellow travelers have mounted an offensive against the practice of stop and frisk. In doing so they have misrepresented the origins, history and rules that govern the practice.
The concept of “stop and frisk” did not originate with the police. The rules governing how, when and where a stop and frisk may be conducted may be found in police procedure manuals. But that the cops didn’t invent them. The concept of “stop and frisk” was invented or defined by the United States Supreme Court. Some of you may know it as a “Terry Stop.” In came about in 1968. The year is significant for two reasons. One it has been around for over fifty years. Two, the Supreme Court that decided it was not right wing. Here is the Terry decision as reported on the U.S. Supreme Court webpage.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/
The second reason that 1968 is significant is that the decision came from the Warren Court. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the Warren Court.
The Warren Court was the period in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States during which Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. Warren replaced the deceased Fred M. Vinson as Chief Justice in 1953, and Warren remained in office until he retired in 1969. Warren was succeeded as Chief Justice by Warren Burger. The Warren Court is often considered the most liberal court in US history.
Wikipedia
There is a problem inherent with the whole concept of the Terry Frisk. In order to be a valid frisk the officer must be able voice a “reasonable and articulable suspicion” that the suspect is involved in criminal activity (before, during or after the event). If the initial contact leads the officer to believe that the suspect maybe armed, then he may “pat down” the outer clothing in order to determine if the person is armed. Problem #1 is most cops can’t spell articulable suspicion, let alone identify it. In this they are not alone, The MSM hasn’t got a clue either. The second problem is that the vast majority of Terry stops do not result in an arrest. No arrest, no outside input as to whether the officer is doing it right. Modern technology in the form of body cams have the potential to address this shortcoming. Every stop with or without arrest is now subject to video review.
There was a case in Texas that illustrates the process of a Terry frisk. A Texas Highway Patrol trooper stopped a tractor trailer late at night out in the middle of nowhere. During the course of the stop the truck driver was unable to provide information that a professional truck driver would know. The trooper’s suspicions aroused he patted the driver down and found a pistol. He arrested the driver. During the inventory of the truck and contents he found a large amount of marijuana, think tons.
During a hearing (could have been a suppression hearing or a trial, I don’t know). The prosecutor set out to prove the elements of Terry, reason to believe the driver was engaged in criminal activity, that he might be armed and the trooper was concerned for his safety. This should have been a lay down. But stupidity knows no bounds in the Texas DPS. The prosecutor got two of the three elements needed. Criminal activity was afoot and the driver was involved. All that remained was to establish that the trooper had a reasonable fear for his safety and the frisk was valid, the arrest for the gun was legal and the subsequent recovery of the marijuana was equally valid.
So close, yet so far. Try as he might (about six different ways) the trooper would not admit to being scared, concerned, in fear for his safety, or uncomfortable about the situation in which he found himself. No reasonable fear, no valid frisk, illegal search to recover the weapon, bad arrest, no reason to inventory the vehicle and discovery of marijuana “fruit of the poisonous tree”. Ben Franklin was familiar with the concept.
I might be paraphrasing the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The court took judicial notice that Texas DPS was hiring and training idiots. They observed that even if the trooper wasn’t smart enough to see the danger a reasonable man confronted with the same facts would be. The frisk and resulting seizure were legal.
I’m beating a dead horse. But in order to make sense of the machinations of liberals, fellow travelers and useful idiots check out this link:
Mini-Manual Of The Urban Guerilla (English) (socialhistoryportal.org)
Carlos Marighella was a Brazilian (person not bikini cut) revolutionary. He penned this blueprint in 1969. As a path to revolution, it didn’t work. However, it did serve as a philosophical basis, justification for “revolutionary acts”. One of the central themes was for revolutionaries to create an atmosphere to show that government and its organs were inept, corrupt and working against the best interests of the citizens. The Soros DA’s should include Marighella’s tome as part of their mission statement.
