Police: "Pat- Frisk"Protects Officers

Local police chiefs say a new Supreme Court ruling jeopardizes the safety of police officers. The ruling prohibits an officer from frisking a suspect unless they have specific knowledge that the suspect is either armed or has a history of violence.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• lowell
• Sun
• frisk
• police
• safety
• supreme
• court
• ruling

[benscrappyusername]

The cops already have too much power! More people need to stand up for their rights! Our rights are the only good thing about this country and their being stripped away every day by police and politicians!

[racernate02]

A "Pat-Frisk" is not a search.

[gringostar67]

I agree that officers need to be able to conduct patdowns, the example shown in the video does not display the officer exercising adequate safety procedures. The officer in the video is using his bare hand. In the event the suspect had a sharp such as a used needle, the officer is taking an unnecessary risk of contracting a Bloodborne virus. Gloves would be a good start, but they do not provide 100% protection vs. a needlestick. Utilizing PPE that offers standoff distance would be much better.

[inyourbusiness73]

@benscrappyusername You wouldn't be saying this if you were a LEO. You would be surprised by the element that police officers have to engage with on a daily basis. I'm a CO at a maximum security prison and everyone will tell you that the inmates have more rights than the officers. It really puts our lives at risk because were limited to what we're able to do. And the inmates know this.

[badpanda84]

@drfoxcourt "The police do have certain special privileges, but they do not include unreasonable (with out a reason) search"

Frisking people who may have commited a crime is perfectly reasonable.

[TheBananamanAssassin]

All those people who have had a history of violence had a first incident too. I guess that means an officer should put himself in severe danger by assuming everyone who has no history of violent criminal activity is a nice person.

[TheBananamanAssassin]

@drfoxcourt So we should wait for someone to be convicted to find the firearm on their person? Get real. You leftist assholes get old in a hurry. A simple pat down is NOT a search of your person or property.

[TheBananamanAssassin]

@drfoxcourt Pat downs are not searches. If you feel uncomfortable, I am sorry, but there is a very big difference

[TheBananamanAssassin]

@badpanda84 Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups. As law enforcement, corrections etc...you will always look like shit in the public eye. But that's why we lean on our brothers and sisters in blue to know our struggle and support us no matter what. We serve the public, but we can not bend to them when it jeopardizes safety. We must stay strong through the public onslaught for our fellow officer.

[TheBananamanAssassin]

@benscrappyusername The police do not have too much power. Measures are put in place to avoid the "1-100" incident. Yes, it does suck to be subjected to such procedures, but our officers lay their lives on the line for our safety, contrary to what you seem to believe. Such measures are to avoid injury, harm, or death to these offices. If you don't like it, feel free to move to a country where officers aren't given this "power", as you call it and see how safe you feel

[TheBananamanAssassin]

@benscrappyusername You're a joke. Improper pat searches have shown suspects to have firearms, knives etc...some of these have become viral videos on the internet. One very famous one I can think of is someone who appears detained in investigative detention waiting til an officer leaves the room to remove a gun from his pants and shoot himself in the head. But of course the pat search that could've saved his life, and potentially lives of officers, is unnecessary and evasive. Get a grip dude.

[AllLitUpProductions]

Fuck the cops!!!