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
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.
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.
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.
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?”