By Mortz C. Ortigoza
United States No.1 radio shock-jock Howard Stern (worth
almost $100 million a year) of the The Howard Stern Show at
Sirius XM Radio did not only interview with then Citizen Donald Trump, the just
elected U.S president, on the latter dalliances that became issues hurled to
him by presidential rival Hillary Clinton.
 |
| The feisty Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. |
Stern and co-anchor, the infectious laughing black woman,
Robin Quivers commented last Friday on Philippines President Rodrigo
Duterte by juxtaposing Duterte’s word to the nickname of their Show’s executive
director Gary “Bababooey” Dell'Abate .
Here’s the conversation:
STERN: This is just cool Bababooey’s reference. Do you guys hear
this? The Philippines President Rodrigo Duarte, this is the actual interview. This
is the guy whose name is Rodrigo Duar.. Duarte…
QUIVERS: Duarte!
STERN: Duarte ! Yeah. Du..Duarte and he is like in the
middle of getting rid of the drug dealers in the Philippines.
QUIVERS: Yeah, it’s a real drug war.
STERN: He is killing a lot of people, and kids have been
killed and he says: “Hey, that’s collateral damage, y’know he seems doesn’t
fucking care but he gives a speech that it sounds like “Bababooey”. Gary, in the Philippines what does Bababooey means?
GARY: It means…. to
drive out the pigs.
STERN: Ya here, the actual Bababooey means.
(Excerpt of the tape recorded speech of President Duterte)
“Do not say that to… bastos ka sabi ko sa inyo don’t do that kasi bababuyin ko kayo!!
So now the doors are open again, the windows are open e
talagang bababuyin ko kayo!
(Stern’s staff laughed)
STERN AND GARY: Bababooey!
STERN: It’s catching.
ROBBINS: Gary’s going international!
 |
U.S No. 1 Radio talk host Howard Stern (R) and his underling
Gary
“Babaobooey” Dell'Abate. |
***
“Just like in the 8.2 million population’s New York City
where crime rates in 2012 plunged to 450 deaths versus the 3 million populated
thriving gun-for hire province Pangasinan where killers snapped out 249 lives
in the same year” I wrote in my blog in 2012.
I argued there that crime rates like bank, other commercial
establishment robberies, and other crimes like mobile phone snatching,
akyat-bahay, hold- up can be lowered by using the stop and frisk methods (SFM
for brevity).
SFM is the situation in which a police officer who is
suspicious of an individual detains the person and runs his hands lightly over
the suspect's outer garments to determine if the person is carrying a concealed
weapon (The Free Dictionary).
Look what we got here. A high ranking police official in the
other province called me recently because he wanted to study SFM and adopt it
at the province he is presently assigned.
“Ano ba iyong sinulat ninyo Kuya sa blog niyo na parang
Oplan Sita (Operation Accost),” he posed to me.
I argued on my blog
that SFM was necessary because of the following observations by the court in
the U.S:
1) Police need a certain flexibility in dealing with quickly evolving and
potentially dangerous situations that arise during routine patrol of the
streets;
2) A rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule (The rule
means that a search of a person should be with the benefit of a warrant or
object that was seen by a lawman to be inflagrante, may exact a high toll in
human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime.
3) The court made room for the idea that some police action short of a
traditional arrest (through Plain View and Search Warrant) could constitute a
seizure—that is, "whenever a police officer accosts an individual and
restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person.
Thus, when the police detective Martin McFadden took hold of John W.
Terry and patted him down on that Cleveland street, the detective
"seized" Terry and subjected him to a "search" within the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment (where Philippine Constitution adopted it at
Section 2, Article III ( Illegal search and seizure" of the Bill of
Rights).
But the Fourth Amendment protects only against unreasonable searches and
seizures, so the Court next had to determine whether Terry’s seizure and search
were "reasonable".
4) Reasonable search for weapons is for the protection of the police
officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and
dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the
individual for a crime.
The court however cautioned the police to avoid using good faith or hunch to
stop and seize a person.” If subjective good faith alone were the test, the
protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be
'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion
of the police," the court quoted Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964).
5) Evidence found on Terry's person was properly admitted because the
search was reasonable. The detective had observed Terry and his companions
acting in a manner of a stick-up. A reasonable person in the detective's
position would have thought that Terry was armed and thus presented a threat to
his safety while he was investigating the suspicious behavior he was observing.
The events he had witnessed made it reasonable for him to believe that either
Terry or his cohorts were armed.
6) The police detective here limited his search to the outer surfaces of
Terry's clothing. His searched was reasonably related for his own safety that
justified the stop from the beginning. Accordingly, the Court concluded that
the revolver found on Terry's person was properly admitted into evidence.
7) The sole justification of the search ... is the protection of the
police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to
an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other
hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer”.
(You can read my selected columns at http://mortzortigoza.blogspot.com and
articles at Pangasinan News Aro. You can send comments too at totomortz@yahoo.com)
