Trump calls for racial unity, embraces 'stop and frisk'

Associated Press ^ | Sep 22, 2016 10:30 AM EDT | Jill Colvin and Steve Peoples

[Olog-hai]

Lamenting a “lack of spirit” between whites and blacks, Donald Trump encouraged racial unity on Thursday even as he called for one of the nation’s largest cities to adopt “stop and frisk” policing tactics that have been widely condemned as racial profiling by minority leaders. […]

“I think Chicago needs stop and frisk,” Trump said. “When you have 3,000 people shot and so many people dying, I mean it’s worse than some of the places we’re hearing about like Afghanistan, you know, the war-torn nations.” …

[Georgia Girl 2]

In Chicago they are going to have to go after the gangs. Probably have to bend the Constitution a skosh.

[Olog-hai]

No, no need to bend the Constitution like the liberals do. Such things are provided for in there.

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

Read the Supreme Court ruling under Terry v Ohio. It details what constitutes sufficient probable cause to allow a police officer to execute a stop and frisk. It’s not as if police can randomly stop and frisk anyone they choose.

[Reno89519]

Yes, this is problematic. Without probably cause, it is wrong.

...which become acceptable? Looking Islamic or middle eastern, looking non-white, dressing like a gang member?

Bet Trump will be asked this.

[servantboy777]

>>Nuff said.<<
No, not Nuff said.

>>Maybe you should read the Supreme Court decision.<<

I'm familiar with the SC decision and happen to disagree with it. I also disagree with the supreme courts decision on gay marriage, Obamacare as well.

It's just tuff stuff, you know, that whole probable cause thang? I don't want the cops to search cause they have a whim. I don't want cops to seize property on a whim. We all know how the property forfeiture debacles working out for freedom loving folks.

There are checks and balances. Cops must follow the law/constitution just like the rest of us.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

So illegal search and seizures will become common place in America?

Are you dumb? If you look like a gang banger, you should be stopped and frisked, maybe even beaten a little.

[Reno89519]

"Police may stop a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may frisk the suspect for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous, without violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures."

Challenge is for the police to have a legit "reasonable suspicion" that withstands public and court scrutiny.

I don't want to be stopped and frisked just because my shirt is untucked to conceal my legal carry or my bag as I walk down the street. But that gangbanger, sure, search him. And thus the problem begins...

I want the respect of the laws, of law enforcement, and of our Constitution, but also the benefits of their protection to identify and weed out the criminal element.

[trebb]

I heard this morning it was deemed unconstitutional and stopped (in NY). I'll see what I can find.

It survived Constitutional scrutiny - it was stopped in NY due to some abuse of it instead of sticking to the guidelines.

[bobsunshine]

Yeah, sometimes we don’t like the decisions from the Supreme Court, but we are a nation of laws and must abide by them or we have nothing.

The rule of law is to protect the law abiding citizen not the criminals. If an officer makes a mistake and there was no evidence of a crime, that is ok. They are trained professionals. We don’t want their hands tied because of political correctness.

We need Mr. Trump as President as he will ensure we have Supreme Court justices that follow the constitution.

If Hillary is elected, she might nominate Obama for the Supreme Court - think about it !!

[tumblindice]

“I don’t want to be stopped and frisked just because my shirt is untucked to conceal my legal carry ... “

Me either. But if you don’t look like a blood or crip gangbanger, or MS-13, and aren’t acting on a way to arouse a cop’s reasonable suspicion that bad things are about to happen and you might be the locus, what do you think the chances are of that happening?

If it happens, lace your fingers on top of your head and tell the cop your carry permit is in your wallet.
If they teach nothing else in inner city schools, they should teach this: `Follow the cop’s directions and you won’t get shot.’

Trump wants police going after the thugs killing other thugs and innocents. But Chiraq is a `rat quagmire.

If citizens are going to criticize him for doing the job the `rats refuse to do, forget it then.

The problem is, like FR’s resident libertarians `rats don’t have a problem with armed thugs but they do have a problem with our legal carry.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “The problem is, like FR’s resident libertarians `rats don’t have a problem with armed thugs but they do have a problem with our legal carry.” <<

Mr Dice, I wish you could become more familiar with Truth as a working concept!

I haven’t encountered any FR libertarian that “doesn’t have a problem with armed thugs but they do have a problem with our legal carry.” <<

Can you point us to an example?
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “So illegal search and seizures will become MORE common place in America?” <<
.

[JimRed]

So illegal search and seizures will become common place in America?

Let the courts decide if the searches are legal. If someone appears to be a threat, check him out. Be as civil about it as he permits you to be. Politely explain the reason for the stop ("you fit the description we have of an individual who...") and apologize to the non-criminals you check.

[JimRed]

If Hillary is elected, she might nominate Obama for the Supreme Court - think about it !!

And the GOPe would just as likely confirm him! As the late, great Bob Grant used to say, "It's sick out there, and getting sicker!"

[Garth Tater]

Still can’t figure out how stop and frisk survived Constitutional challenge.

It didn't. Police can not stop and frisk anyone the choose at any time. They have to have a reason that they can clearly state and "he looked suspicious" or "I thought he might be up to something" don't count.They have to be able to state a reason for the stop. Look it up:

Terry Stop

"To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts" that would indicate to a reasonable police officer that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed"

Now, once they have legally stopped (detained) a person they do have the right to a frisk - not an anal cavity search, but a quick pat down (for the officer's safety) is allowed and I have no problem with this - but just stopping someone because they looked suspicious (which is what NYC and other locales were doing) did not survive Constitutional scrutiny.

Mr Trump is skating mighty close to the line here. Free men and women are free to travel the public byways without being subjected to unreasonable search. Where you are, the time of day, your apparel, ethnicity, age, attitude, etc. ARE NOT sufficient cause to stop someone and if you can't legally stop them then you can't frisk them. The Donald NEEDS to clarify his position on this quickly. I take my freedoms seriously and protect them with vigor. You want to stop and frisk me just to see what I'm up to? Okay, maybe I'll stop by and frisk your wife and daughter just to see what they are up to.

Clear this up quickly Mr Trump, you're flirting with tyranny here.

[af_vet_rr]

agreed. Thankfully this is Trump’s first draft. It will be very different by the 3rd or 4th round.

This is what I was able to put together from some of the video clips that have aired today from the Faux and Friends interview, although one was taken down by Fox News. If I see a full video clip that stays up, I'll post it here.

This is what Trump said, although I may have missed a word or two.

Basically, they will, if they see you know, they’re proactive and if they see a person possibly with a gun or they think may have a gun, they will see the person, and they’ll look and they’ll take that gun away.

“They’ll stop, they’ll frisk, and they’ll take the gun away, and they won’t have anything to shoot. I mean, how it’s not being used in Chicago is, to be honest with you, it’s quite unbelievable. And, you know the police, the local police, they know who has a gun and who shouldn’t be having a gun. They understand this.

He does say that this is only about Chicago, but he is way too enthusiastic about giving the police the power to stop and frisk folks, and even take their guns away.

[af_vet_rr]

Mr Trump is skating mighty close to the line here. Free men and women are free to travel the public byways without being subjected to unreasonable search. Where you are, the time of day, your apparel, ethnicity, age, attitude, etc. ARE NOT sufficient cause to stop someone and if you can't legally stop them then you can't frisk them. The Donald NEEDS to clarify his position on this quickly. I take my freedoms seriously and protect them with vigor. You want to stop and frisk me just to see what I'm up to? Okay, maybe I'll stop by and frisk your wife and daughter just to see what they are up to.

Clear this up quickly Mr Trump, you're flirting with tyranny here.

If you watch the Fox and Friends interview - I posted a short excerpt above - Trump directly talks about letting cops take guns away from people, and that somehow the cops know who should and shouldn't have guns.

I am feeling this is crossing that line - I've caught enough crap from LEOs when I have legally possessed/carried firearms in the past, either personally or within my vehicle, and I've had a few outside of my home state that were not thrilled about me being a CCL holder, when they saw that I had a CCL. I don't take my firearms out of state, mind you, but they did not like that I was a CCL holder.

[DoodleDawg]

Still can’t figure out how stop and frisk survived Constitutional challenge.

It didn't, not as New York originally enacted it and as Trump visualizes it. The court struck it down in Terry v. Ohio.

[DoodleDawg]

Ask the TSA.

You voluntarily subject yourself to search by buying the airline ticket. People who were stopped and frisked at random gave no such permission.

[DoodleDawg]

Probably have to bend the Constitution a skosh.

That's what Obama believes.