Thread: Is stop-and-frisk unconstitutional as alleged during the Trump / Hillary debate?

With regard to “stop and frisk” our Supreme Court has STATED in Terry v. Ohio

”We merely hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken.”

Now, let us look at the pinko propaganda put out by the New York Daily News. See Donald Trump gets the facts about stop-and-frisk completely wrong in presidential debate


”Trump said Holt was “wrong” in saying stop-and-frisk searches are unconstitutional.
It’s Trump who was wrong.”


But, as stated by the Supreme Court, stop-and-frisk is not unconstitutional.

The New York Daily News also stated:

”Trump also insisted in the debate that crime and murders have gone up since stop-and-frisk stopped.
He told Clinton she was “wrong” in pointing out that crime has continued falling under Mayor de Blasio.
Once again: You’re wrong, Trump”


Is Trump wrong? Not according to the New York Daily Post. See NYPD Commissioner William Bratton to speak on crime trends; shootings up; stop and frisks down

”Bratton has insisted the shootings are unrelated to the large drop in stop and frisk activity by cops. But the latest police data showed the New York City police precincts with the largest increases in shootings last year -- as well as, in a few cases, more homicides -- also reported having the lowest numbers of stop and frisks in 2014.”

The bottom line is, Lester Holt was wrong when asserting stop-and-frisk is un-constitutional. And there has been an uptick in New York City’s murder rate since stop and frisk has been ended.

JWK



The Obama/Hillary Administration has given aid and comfort to our sworn enemies by releasing them from GITMO and paid hundreds of millions in ransom for the return of our military personnel.

The bottom line is, Lester Holt was wrong when asserting stop-and-frisk is un-constitutional. And there has been an uptick in New York City’s murder rate since stop and frisk has been ended.

Yes, he was wrong. He was wrong on the Constitution, he was wrong on the Law, he was wrong on the Ruling, and he was wrong on all points.

Murders are indeed up in New York, and Hillary lied about that.

I'm not a fan of Stop and Frisk in concept. I'm basically against police doing this. However, there are situations and circumstances that not only warrant it but call for it. Those situations are like the situation in Chicago and other cities with outrageous murder problems that Trump was referring to.

It seems when communities are out of hand with crime, murders, drugs something must be done to protect the innocent living in those areas. Blacks instead of continuing to flee from police need to just face the officers and do as they ask - period - that is respect for law enforcement that everyone needs to display.

It is upside down for that judge to say it is expected and acceptable to run from police and give them a hard time. Would like to see him spend one day on that job let alone day after day of unnecessary problems. All the New Yorker Eric Gardner had to do was let the police take him in but no he resisted, The heroin dealer in Baltimore should not have set up a chase with police but he probably had drugs on or in him.

Where do they think they can run to? the police don't have all day to coax them into the police wagon. it is just not wanting to follow law/procedure and bullying/rioting your way to change it so that you can do whatever the hell you want.
that is not good for society as we see in all the killings weekly.

the police can only do so much, it is what the community will BEAR that dictates community behaviour.

Holt was unfair with the birther issue too - had no place in the debate especially when the originator of the doubt was standing at the next podium. How many years went by w/o a birth certificate before a birth "notice" was released? Where are the college records of barry seutoro, indonesian muslim aka foreign student? It was holt's candy crowley moment and was racially inspired. obama is not looked upon with high regard as she stated either.

There was not supposed to be audience clapping either that he allowed.

Holt was very unfair. He kept interrupting Trump and fact-checking Trump when he didn't do that with Hillary. And I don't know if anyone was checking the time, but it sure seemed to me that Hillary went on and on and on for more than the 2 minutes while Holt would cut Trump off before it seemed to me that he talked even a minute.

Well, the result is Trump won with the people. I think he won votes. I think next debate, the gloves are coming off, and he's going to nail her ass to the wall.

Trump was trying to be respectful so he would not be creamed in the press for attacking a woman. She was downright condescending and extremely disrespectful and she had her guns loaded. She made it an ugly debate. No one wants to hear the constant put downs and brags when she herself is a major screw up and liar yet she stands there like I'm so dignified and all knowing - yeh you know well how to lie, steal and be selfishly careless because your are self centered and lazy.

He needs to attack her on her record instead of bolstering her as sect'y clinton - yeah madame screw up sect'y. She doesn't deserve respect for the bad job she did. Call her hillary as she calls him Donald.

She is hard to watch - akin to a snake oil salesman.

He'll be ready next debate. He'll also make sure he has a microphone that not only works but is the right height. Watch the film and see how low his is when he's over 6'2" compared to Hillary's and she's a shortie. Her microphone is about 2 inches higher than his, so he has to lean over to speak into it. He checked it an hour before the debate and it was perfect both in sound and position. So someone has messed with it.

But back on point, remember how he did it in the primary debates? He would be nice and polite to everyone and then in the next one he would decide which one to knock off. He's doing it the same way here. He was nice and polite. He made some of his points but didn't go after her or the moderator. Next week he'll attack. There will be no more "Secretary Clinton". "Crooked Hillary" is coming.

Just like she was worried @ looking small because of their height differences, she probably had discussions on how to make him look bad. they made him look cowering, hunching over to speak while she stood there upright.

Also picked up breathing noises as he had a downward head position. He needs to correct that if it happens again, now that he is aware of petty dirty trick playing.

Yes, that is exactly what they did.

GRRRR!!!

Former Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, has been giving an excellent short explanation of " Stop and Frisk".

* The microphone situation being discussed about Mr. Trump, the height and our ability to hear him breathe, were most likely intentional. Rush Limbaugh discussed this and used the term, "compression".

Starts at 1:08
Rudy Giuliani: Stop and frisk is perfectly constitutional



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uv1jsXh-7w