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.
Stop and frisk is an unreasonable practice. Put yourself in my shoes. I carry a handgun frequently. On rare occasions, I even conceal it. If I walk down a street in my town and the police ask if they can frisk me because they noticed a bulge under my shirt, the response will be some variation of NO. Absent some level of probable cause, they have no right to search me, although they could (arguably) do a Terry frisk.
Why should I or anyone else who is merely walking down the street have to deal with that BS?
The crime problem has to with scum. Usually known scum who have all sorts of prior convictions. Take those scum off the street and the problem goes away. Another alternative is to arm the living daylights out of the populace and let them work the criminality problems as tradition dictates.
Stop and frisk may pay some dividends, but it fuels a “papers please” mentality that has no place in a free society.
So is same-sex marriage, if that is your criteria for constitutionality.
Anyone remember TSA?
It works.
Lets stick with “Reasonable and articulable suspicion.”
We have case law that is well established in these matters in Terry vs. Ohio.
However, there are places and times that need a strong and assertive police presence to suppress crime.
I’m actually a little surprised at the number of people here supporting stop-and-frisk. Regardless of the effect it may have had, it’s an extremely slippery slope.
If someone is seen throwing gang signs, acting suspiciously, that’s one thing. But to just stop someone and frisk them...in the hope that something is found...that’s a problem.
What else will then become acceptable, and if you think it is, then ask yourself this, “how many laws are repealed versus laws created every year?”
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.