Rudy Giuliani: Stop and frisk is perfectly constitutional (Candy Crowley moment)

Fox News ^ | 9/27/2016 | Neil Cavuto

[Sgt_Schultze]

Trump should have replied to Holt, "Lester, if you want to take part in this debate, you should pull up a lectern next to Hillary."

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

But, according to liberals the SCOTUS is, and they ruled it Constitutional 50 years ago.

Wouldn't that make it "settled law"?

[SoCal Pubbie]

Which is exactly what Trump said.

[Boanarges]

Holt is “stuck on stupid.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv5m4hTMuWU

[DoodleDawg]

Wouldn't that make it "settled law"?

Terry stops are. The complaint that they made in New York was that the stop and frisk searches were racially motivated and done without any reasonable suspicion of past or impending wrong-doing on the part of the person being frisked. Any future challenge would certainly use that argument.

[GilGil]

Wouldn’t that make it “settled law”?

_____________

Giuliani had the exact same argument!

[DoodleDawg]

Which is exactly what Trump said. Sort of. His answer rambled a bit. You need stop and frisk. You need to take away criminal's guns. You need better community relations. But there is no doubt that Clinton and Holt were wrong when they said it had been found unconstitutional. Like I said, one lower court's opinion isn't the final answer.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Oh, so in other words they are trying to get around "settled law" by arguing that it really doesn't apply even though it does.

Such hypocrisy.

[NEMDF]

Giuliani should personally pressure Lester Holt to issue and apology. I’ll hold my breath waiting....

[TexasGator]

Federal funds

[MMaschin]

According to others it isn't. So I guess the best thing would be for Trump to implement it and let it play out in court, though since it's a local law enforcement matter and not a federal matter I'm not sure how he would do that.


SCOTUS sets chilling precedent for stop and frisk in 5-3 vote

And because the ACLU said "We are deeply disappointed. #SCOTUS got it wrong on the 4th Amendment in Streiff, with terrible repercussions" - we know it's a good thing!

[Paul R.]

It would seem to me that police officers should at least be required to log stop and frisk searches, including the subject’s identity, time and date, and some explanation for the stop beyond “suspect looked suspicious”. (Maybe this is already required?)

Do roadblocks that stop everyone on a road, for DUI, meet the “reasonable suspicion” test?

[DoodleDawg]

Do roadblocks that stop everyone on a road, for DUI, meet the “reasonable suspicion” test?

Probably since it's everybody and not based on the officer's intuition.

[sargon]

Rudy Giuliani: Stop and frisk is perfectly constitutional (Candy Crowley moment)

A Democrat Media shill (Lester Holt) does a phony fact-check on a Republican candidate?

Why am I not surprised?

Vote Trump!

[stephenjohnbanker]

Thanks

[PrayAndVoteConservesInLibsOut]

I will keep posting this idea: Trump should be able to have a moderator moderate the moderators. That would be fair since they are all democrats. That way if the moderators involve themselves in any way....whether by inserting their OPINIONS in their QUESTIONS or by NOT asking the same hard question to Hillary...then the moderator of the moderator jumps in JUST AS A JUDGE does in court and says OBJECTION!!!!!

PLEASE pass this idea on to Mr. Trump if you have connections. THANK YOU!