Since we're all probably tired of bad news and snark, I figured I'd post a link to a story about what happens when a good cop meets a responsible young black man.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/this-te...

So for everybody that thinks all cops are bad news, or that all young black men are thugs, I reckon there's at least one of each that are trying hard to do the right thing.

To put Chief Justice Warren's commentary into context, and to understand the judicial systems view on frisking suspects back in 1968, it was felt that for the safety of police officers, they should be able to "lightly pat down on, on the outside of their garments" in order to make sure that whoever they are talking with doesn't have any weapons.

You'll note there is nothing in there about cavity searches, drug sniffing dogs, or sobriety check points.

The intent was to improve officer safety. It was never intended to be used for fishing expeditions to see if law enforcement couldn't find something to arrest somebody they don't like, or simply someone they want off the street.

Then there is that characteristic of 21st century law enforcement I really don't like, simply busting people for the sake of revenue generation, which is quite common everywhere now apparently.

Doing that violates a couple of Articles of our Constitution.

It was Right-Wing Nut-Job Rudy Giuliani that brought us "Stop and Frisk" as a way to encourage New York Police to keep their thumbs pressing down on what Rudy considered "thugs and degenerates."

Problem is, who gets to decide who the "thugs" and "degenerates" are?

I mean, if I get to be the one who picks who the police are stopping and frisking, then by all means, it's a great idea.

Heck, I'd even be good with Oldschool making the call.

But unfortunately the courts can't assure that a reasonable, moderate person will be the one deciding on that, so I reckon it's best for the courts to keep it away from everybody.

Especially politicians like Rudy.