Remember how Hillary was supposedly worried about having this Moderator, who is supposedly a Registered Republican? I still take him for a liberal. It was obvious which candidate he was for in my opinion. My wife, who doesn't watch the news, and refuses to listen about politics, watched the debate with me. She barely knows anything about the canidates or the moderator, but she asked me part way into the debate, "Is that guy one of Hillary's supporters or something? It sure seems like it to me the way he is prodding at Trump."The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm not Trump's biggest fan, but actually he never said that. But he did say he'd encourage police to use that tactic.....which means that some people will get stopped and frisked, but not "everybody".drjoker wrote:.........I was against him when he said that he would unconstitutionally stop and frisk everybody.
Now that said, the moderator and Clinton both flat out lied when they said it was unconstitutional. "Stop and frisk" is a "Terry stop" - okayed by SCOTUS in 1968, and legal ever since. The objection in NYC was that black people were being stopped and frisked out of proportion to their representation in the general population. That's easily explainable........more of them are committing crimes. That's not racist. That's just a sad fact of life in the ghetto. So more of them are acting in a manner that invites a Terry stop by NYPD. Now, what the debate moderator and Clinton ALSO lied about is this: The NY judge to called stop and frisk unconstitutional was actually thrown off the case because of her well-publicized bias against police. AND, what the moderator and Clinton both lied about is that the decision did NOT stop the stop and frisk policy, because Mayor Bloomberg (a gun owner's best friend) continued the policy. It wasn't stopped until the current commie got elected - Bill de Blasio. He's the one who stopped it, long after the bad judge was tossed off the case.
Here is a more detailed explanation of that particular issue, and how it was lied about in the debate: https://patriotpost.us/posts/45077. Whether or not Terry stops are a good idea, I'm not the definitive opinion. I'm uncomfortable with them, because I can see how that authority can easily be abused......but I also can see the utility of the practice from the law enforcement side well enough to understand that as long as it isn't abused, it can be another good tool in the LEO toolbox.........as long as it isn't abused and heavy handed.
I agree with you about the stop and frisk TAM. It is a very questionable tactic from my LEO perspective as well. It is unfair to those that are statistically breaking the law. I think in places like Chicago, something similar should be pressed, because of the amount of crime. I don't believe in violating people's rights, but something needs to be done. Adding more restrictions to law enforcement in this area just lets the criminals run rampant. There is no perfect or right way. Unless one of you can come up with the dream solution to gangs roaming streets, terrorizing communities, dealing drugs, and killing people. It is sad when a bunch of gang members on the corner with illegal drugs and guns, can continue about their business without interference, lest they cry out that they are being targeted because of their race.
A VOTE NOT FOR TRUMP IS A VOTE FOR HILLARY.
