Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court ruling on stop and search without cause?

SFC (Join to see) - Exactly which is what I was waiting to see if TSgt Shirley to read or perhaps re-read as he missed the whole point of that before he went on his tirade.

We are all getting screwed. The false L vs R paradigm is designed solely to keep us at each other's throats rather than to see how we are all being robbed. Fundamentally, we all are likely to have things in common if we could get past the highly emotional trivial issues that are presented to divide us.

Ask yourself these questions: was there really a strong push for gay marriage? How about women in combat?

It is very likely that some amount of oppressive policies were emplaced in Ferguson that created this monster. Does that mean that all of the people there are angels? Certainly not.

Rational thought and a little bit of intellectual honesty should allow us to bring ourselves to some areas of common agreement. This is why "stop and search," without probable cause is a bad thing. Well intentioned, possibly, but a horrible idea in practice.

TSgt Frank Shirley So not only do you give me a thumbs down and not explain why, you refuse to read the article because the title is enough? Using that logic I suppose you believe that Melville's Moby Dick is about overgrown male genitalia. I disagree with 85% of MSNBC's content but will watch. Huffpo .. same but I will read ... Why do you choose to be willingly ignorant? That's a very Trumpian mindset.

TSgt Frank Shirley - Mr. Trump uses inane rhetoric, bluster and insults to detract from that fact that he is not well informed on an issue.

"NO NEED TO READ THE STORY THE TITLE IS ENOUGH." Inane rhetoric
Use of all caps despite being informed as to the breach of etiquette ... Bluster
Your condescending remark the first time I informed you of your breach of etiquette ... insults.

Since you insist on "e-yelling" after being informed on this breach of etiquette, you are no longer acting out of ignorance, you are acting in a Trumpian manner. Therefore, the comparison is valid and appropriate.

Had you read the entirety of the article from Fox news you would have discovered:
1. The 80% of Ferguson, Missouri residents have warrants as reported by Fox news … That was from a 2015 Justice Department investigation.
2. That the statement was not reported as a condemnation of the citizens but of the police who abused their authority to bring in revenue to the city.

Below are two links you can use to learn appropriate etiquette. I offer them to you as I would anyone un or misinformed on the proper manner to conduct themselves in order to insure there are no slights from miscommunication.

http://www.netmanners.com/426/courtesy-1/

https://newrepublic.com/article/117390/netiquette-capitalization-how-caps-became-code-yelling

PO3 Chris Scheide - It may, or may not, encourage unlawful stops. On one hand, some cop might be thinking, "Maybe I'll get lucky and he will have a warrant." But at the same time, the mayor and police chief might be saying, "Don't get the city sued for 10 million dollars by some guy you illegally stopped and he has a good lawyer. The risk is way too high for the potential reward of an occasional arrest."

TSgt Frank Shirley
Frank, on that we see eye to eye!

I had previously only gotten the barest details of the case, but today I read the whole article posted above and I'm pretty pleased that I pretty much nailed the thinking behind the decision. That either says I have a logical mind, or that Justices aren't any smarter than Jarheads..... And I haven't changed my position in this case, I think they made the right decision. My wife would be surprised probably because I usually refer to police as highwaymen waiting to rob the working man who is just trying to get where he needs to be to take care of his family. I used to drive a really fast shiny black car, they are kind of a fetish for me. Call it the white-boy version of driving while black, they were always after me. Then I discovered a legal miracle! I found a lawyer that specialized in traffic offenses, and he would defend traffic tickets for flat fee of $200. He got 4 tickets dismissed for me, and at last check among my friends and coworkers he was like 14:0 dismissals. So, over the three years I owned that car, I calculated that I paid about $20 a month to drive any way I damn well pleased! (not an admission of any driving offenses) Ah, freedom from tyranny! Before someone quickly points out the problem with my math, understand I eventually figured out my cars performance was completely in a class way above anything they were driving, and cops aren't nearly as good drivers as they think they are either (not their fault, they learned to drive in a full-size sedan that is not setup for NASCAR), so I stopped hiring the attorney and just increased my speed when I saw the cops coming. And before anyone says you can't outrun the radio...yes, yes you can. (Legal Disclaimer: Not saying necessarily that I outran the cops over and over, I am just saying I know that it can be done over and over.) A friend in law enforcement warned me my car was completely unfairly and arbitrarily placed on 'the list' to stop-on-sight (no idea why, after all, I'm not saying that I necessarily ever outran the police, over and over). Knowing that eventually because of my driving while black in a community where law enforcement clearly had it out for me, I decided I just needed to sell the car to escape their harassment. Midlife crisis in remission, at least until I buy my Aston/Martin V8 Vantage in about two years.....they really won't stand a chance of catching that car (of course, not necessarily with me behind the wheel).

Sgt Joseph Baker - That is an excellent point, especially in our lawsuit happy society.