The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board says, The rise in gun violence has prompted some City Council members to call for the Police Department to reexamine its stop-and-frisk policy. While the idea is well intended, it should be a nonstarter.

The Philadelphia Police Department has a long history of racial discrimination and brutality aimed at the Black and Latino communities.

…..In other words, stop-and-frisk doesn’t work, and only fosters the illegal practice of racial profiling. We need new ideas to address crime in Philadelphia.

The city’s recent $5.8 billion budget includes $155 million for violence prevention programs. While better than nothing, it is beyond underwhelming given the stakes. [MORE]

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the people against unjustified detentions by the government. The Amendment reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In order for the police to stop you the Supreme Court has ruled that police must have reasonable articulable suspicion that there is criminal activity afoot and that you are involved in the activity. Police may not act on on the basis of an inchoate or unclear and unparticularized suspicion or a hunch - there must be some specific articulable facts along with reasonable inferences from those facts to justify the intrusion.

In order to frisk you the Supreme Court has ruled that the police must have independent reasonable articulable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous before they may touch you or put their hands on you (a cursory patdown for weapons). Police may not act on on the basis of an unclear and unparticularized suspicion or a hunch - there must be some specific, actual & articulable facts along with reasonable inferences from those facts to justify the intrusion.

However, legal truths must give way to reality. In real life, Brazen cops so frequently abuse their power that no Black shopper, pedestrian, motorist, juvenile, adult or Black professional of any kind—could make a compelling argument that so-called constitutional rights provide Black people any real protection from cops or the government in general.

The only thing upholding the 4th Amendment is your belief in it. You only have rights if an authority says that you do. Your possession of "rights” given to you by a magical government, which functions as your master, is cult belief. Rights are myths. As stated by Dr. Blynd, “There is no freedom in the presence of so-called authority.” The belief in “authority,” which includes all belief in “government,” is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in “authority” is the arch-enemy of humanity.” [MORE]

FUNKTIONARY explains,

adherent rights – privileges disguised as so-called “rights” created by men via deceptive word-manipulation in written form called “symbolaeography,” and legal documents. 2) privileges granted by an apparent or putative authority at the expense of one's inherent or unalienable ‘rights.’ (See: Inherent Rights & Rights)

inherent rights – unalienable and unassailable rights. Inherent rights have never been codified into law, so if you’re from a phfree family, you’ll know how to assert and defend them), and if not, you won’t. (See: Adherent Rights)

“rights” – useful fictions declared in order to make agents of another type of fiction (“government”) have to play along in their deadly theatrical (tragicomedy) game. 2) mere fictions, the contemplation of which leads only to a progressive social, personal, racial and jurisprudential separation from reality. Discussion and debates about “rights” merely evades the FAQ, i.e., the frequently avoided question of who is to enforce any “right” and who will benefit from the pretense. “Rights” are separated into two categories—those flowing from “negative liberties” and those flowing from “positive liberties.” In law, rights are remedies and if a person is without a remedy (as is with citizens of the United States) he is without a right, and only a ‘thing’ is without rights. (See: Negative Liberties, Positive Liberties, Bill of Rights, Liberty, Freedom, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Ma’at & Justice) [MORE]