Posted on 09/21/2016 2:18:51 PM PDT by Pinkbell
Tonight, Sean Hannity is doing a town hall with Trump aimed at the black community. He was asked about Stop And Frisk. This appears to be causing controversy on Twitter already (just released transcript), so I imagine there will be a lot of discussion about this. Per Chris Snyder of Fox News:
NEW - @realDonaldTrump tells @seanhannity tonight on @FoxNews he'd use stop-and-frisk to end violence in black communities
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I had a question about, there's been a lot of violence in the black community- I want to know, what would you do to help stop that violence, you know, black on black crime...
TRUMP: Right, well one of the things I'd do, Ricardo, is I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to. We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well and you have to be proactive and, you know, you really help people sort of change their mind automatically, you understand, you have to have, in my opinion, I see what's going on here, I see what's going on in Chicago, I think stop-and-frisk. In New York City it was so incredible, the way it worked. Now, we had a very good mayor, but New York City was incredible, the way that worked, so I think that could be one step that you could do.
I'm curious to hear from FReepers on this. Did stop and frisk work? Is it a program that people support from a Constitutional stand point? There are black and hispanic people who didn't like it - saying it caused a disproportionate number of arrests in those communities, so do you think that could be a negative with Trump's outreach to those voters?
Liberals currently going nuts on Twitter over it, and I imagine Hillary will use this as well as the Democrat pundits on the various shows.
I'm curious to hear opinion here on whether people agree with it or not.
it worked in NY city
He should get Rudy Giuliani out there on his flank on this.
These are dangerous times and it worked under Giuliani in NY City. It suppressed the drug dealers and gang bangers and prevented murders and crime.
Initially I had problems with this but based on what has happened under Emmanuel in Chicago, under DeBlasio in NY and in other major cities, I changed my mind and now support it.
How many black lives were saved using stop-and-frisk and Project Exile?
Gang-banging thugs have no 2nd Amendment rights. They've already broken numerous gun laws before they even held their firearm sideways to kill another gang-banging thug.
Even the premise of Ricardo's question should have been rejected.
“During the 1990s, crime rates in New York City dropped dramatically, even more than in the United States as a whole. Violent crime declined by more than 56 percent in the City, compared to about 28 percent in the nation as whole. Property crimes tumbled by about 65 percent, but fell only 26 percent nationally.”
http://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/w9061.html
I thought the town hall was a live event.
The question is whether this is a FEDERAL issue.
(It isn’t.)
It worked great in NYC. Violent crime when down hugely, like 70-80-90% depending on the category. Resulted in a massive economic and quality of life boom for New York City. A judge did find it unconstitutional, but that case is still making its way through the courts. Supreme Court precedent (Terry case) supports it.
Personally, I am concerned about the civil liberties issue, but I do support it if done carefully.
Couldn’t that have been due to policies that were implemented other than police stopping and searching people arbitrarily ? Which is certainly unconsitutional no matter how you slice it.
I guess that was my main question about it is whether it is Constitutional or violates “unreasonable search and seizures.”
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects personal privacy, and every citizen’s right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property — whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses.
Gangbangers, MS13, illegal aliens and other criminals don’t have any rights to privacy if it is reasonable to think they’re walking around strapped.
If police have an objective belief based on personal knowledge or probable cause, the ACLU can pound sand. This is what police should be doing.
Those of us non-felons with CCPs, speaking for myself I don’t care if criminals are disarmed: like locks that keep honest people honest, maybe we wouldn’t have to carry if we weren’t concerned about armed scumbags.
Stop and frisk worked in NYC. We should be sending shock police with full body armor on flying raids into Chicago’s south side for random checks. That is, if BLM wasn’t just noise and anyone really cared about black lives.
Depends on the judge at this point, and maybe the way a particular policy is written or applied. But properly written and properly applied, it’s constitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent.
With the Freddie Grey thing, I looked up the term “Terry Stop” which was being thrown around at the time.
“reasonable suspicion” and all that.
Yes, quite Constitutional, having survived several challenges by the SCOTUS.
Could have worded that better, but I think everyone gets the gist of it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1
“Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons 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 officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.”
Like enforcing our immigration laws, only Donald Trump has the stones to say, “Enough”.
It sure as hell did work in NY.
Check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City#Murders_by_year
(summary: Murders dropped from 1,946 in 1993 to 328 in 2014)
Rudy took office Jan 1, 1994. Bloomberg continued the policy through then end of his terms, Dec. 31, 2013. Deblasio ended stop-and-frisk, so now NYC is returning to its old ‘normal’.
Even given Bloomberg’s silly quirks, they were both AMAZING mayors. The murder rate in NYC was lower than that of many states, and MUCH, MUCH, lower than any other big city in the country. Literally many thousands of New Yorkers are alive today that would otherwise have been murdered, if the old rate continued.
Thank you.
That was the part of one of the decisions that I had read last year on the topic.
I probably got linked to it by a FReeper.
All the Supreme Court cases that I am aware of are from the 1960’s so perhaps it does need to be revisted. Especially given that only around seven or eight (?) percent of the New York stops under Bloomberg actually resulted in a summons or arrest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.