The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.Trump praises 'stop-and-frisk' police tactic
CLEVELAND©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.
66 Comments
Login to comment
Black Sabbath
Trump continues his outreach to racist and 'moderate' whites.
And it's working.
This much we know: Republican voters have thrown their lot in with a white supremacist.
They will lose this election, and their brand is permanently ruined with people younger than 30.
The Republican is destroyed.
Laguna
Cool! I'd say SHAKE HIM DOWN! Maybe they'll find his tax returns.
PTownsend
Law and order = keep fear alive = keep throwing billions at the failed war on drugs = take away more freedoms from individuals and give more power to the state. Trump's followers care about the freedumb to maintain their gun hobbies, little else.
CrazyJoe
Trump's already called for profiling. Combine that with his new call for stop and frisk and anybody who isn't White is going to feel like a fugitive.
bass4funk
So you are saying, Trump is calling EVERY single Black, Hispanic and White racist to support him? Do you have any proof of this?
And it's working.
What's working is the frustration that the country is having with this president and his unwillingness to confront crime or terror. You have to treat Black suspects with the kindest care or you will be labeled as a racist. You are not allowed to verbally say anything or use self-defense for fear of being called a racist, randomly profiling Blacks or Latinos to stop and frisk them is a racist act, even though it got thousands and thousands of weapons off the street saving possibly hundreds of lives and let's not call any Muslim that has been radicalized and commits a crime a terrorist, let's not call radical Islam for what it is, let's call it workplace violence or an angered and troubled individual, but never, ever use the word Jihadist or terrorist. All of these examples and more and this admin. that tries to push the narrative and try to tell us and feed us BS on a daily basis is the reason it's working and working agains the Democrats.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
And while you're at it, let's get a blender and throw the Democrats in the mix as well.
Lizz
All the Supreme Court Stop and frisk cases that I am aware of are from the 1960’s so perhaps it does need to be revisted. Especially given that only around seven or eight (?) percent of the New York stops under Bloomberg actually resulted in a summons or arrest.
Dre Hund
Cops don't want to do the job either. Watch the first season of Hill Street Blues again. Especially that first episode with the refrigerator.
SuperLib
I'm curious if Donald is on board with calls to reform our criminal justice system. Democrats are for it, Republicans all voted against it.
nath
All Trump has to do now is show how he will create jobs for the 50% under 30 African Americans unemployed.
It will cost $20 billion to create 2 million jobs at $8 a hour. That or 1 million jobs at $16 a hour.
Trump could easily set aside $20 billion pa in budget, to promos them African Americans 1 - 2 million jobs. Demand will also create more.
Just doing that will get him 40% of the African unemployed vote +.
nadaku
Or one job at $16million an hour. That way he could employ himself and enrich himself at the expense of others like he has so many times.
mr_jgb
Strong law and order tactics in the midst of terrorism and rampant violence occurring frequently in certain cities or neighborhood are common sense measures and are not racist policies. Safety is in everyone interest. Don't make the policemen job more difficult and get into political debate or controversy. Law and order are necessary in every nation; it is to punish the criminals and reward the law abiding citizens, not the other way around.
Strangerland
Trump's America, where everyone is equal, but whites are a little more equal.
JefferyDomer
Strangerland, how does race play into this? Are you saying all black people are victims? Sounds like you have the agenda.
This is quite a worrying development from Trump. I very much disagree with this stop and frisk nonsense.
bass4funk
Or more like, Middle American working class is not forgotten, finally.
Strangerland
Because stop and frisk targets minorities.
bass4funk
Then they shouldn't be carrying weapons, it's not that they ARE minorities, but it's that many minorities carry them, whatever the reason for protection or to retaliate is beside the point, stop and frisk worked, I remember a very long time ago, living in NY stepping out of your house was a scary thing and because of Giuliani's aggressive clean up tactics, he was able to turn one of the most violent cities into one of the safest cities in the country. Now if he could only be the mayor in Chicago.....
katsu78
If it's good enough for Trump to do to his daughter on stage, it must be good enough for America's police.
Strangerland
Um you don't see the logic failure in that statement?
Your logic is that they shouldn't carry guns if they don't want to get stopped and frisked. But if they aren't stopped and frisked, how do the police know they are carrying a gun?
nadaku
So, let me get this right. Republicans viciously defend the second amendment which aims to protect the right to hold weapons is fundamental to America. And yet, when minorities, which should have equal rights and therefore the right to hold weapons under that same 2nd amendment, have them... well, then they should be frisked and searched because, hey, they might be carrying weapons.
If that is not your definition of racial profiling, I don't know what is.
Laguna
nadaku, you just don't get it. The Second Amendment only applies to those who look American - y'know, those who don't have to show their birth certificates because their birthplace is pretty obvious. People like my friend Sven, who's actually from Sweden and sells boxed lunches at office parks as an "independent contractor" so he doesn't have to show ID - those kind of people. They're Americans. Others aren't unless they can prove it, so get ready to be frisked and tossed in jail (if you're lucky - better practice that spread-eagle-on-the-pavement maneuver) before anyone grudgingly acknowledges your right to carry a weapon.
bass4funk
How do the Israelis know who's a terrorist and yet, they use more profiling than anyone else and get it right almost every time. Random profiling works and has worked.
Yes, but it doesn't apply to gang members who would use it to, let's just say, settle a dispute or pacify someone...
Because many of them are either in gangs or commit petty crimes, correct.
Racial profiling doesn't imply racism. I know liberals try so hard to connect the two, but as a police officer, you go by the stats and in cities like L.A. or Chicago and NY a large portion of the people that commit crimes are sadly minorities. Take the emotion out of it and don't apply it to this issue, doesn't help your argument.
Strangerland
Ok, so you're changing your position from:
To it IS because they are minorities, and minorities need to profiled.
You should have been clear about that from the start.
goldorak
Am not against "stop and frisk' in principle but it would only work if all police forces were prejudice-free which is obviously not the case (and it simply can't be the case as yes some minorities do commit more crimes but it doesn't mean most/all ppl from a given minority are involved in crime).
Unfortunately it would be ALL about racial/social profiling and in the end I think we would have a substantial number of ppl 'on edge' for the wrong reasons. It would imo make things worse.
I think Trump and other "stop and frisk' supporters are trying to sell it as crime's very own RBT (random breath testing) but it's not. There is nothing random about it. Child sex tourists are overwhelmingly whites, yet not all Caucasians are interrogated upon departure/arrival.
bass4funk
In regards to the surrounding areas where crime is highest and where minorities mostly live, but to profile them just because of their SKIN color, that's something totally different, it's the actions of the minorities and not the race as far as looking down on them as inferior.
Well, I just clarified it. You are welcome.
Strangerland
No it's not. It's searching the because of their skin color, based on the place they live. Not everyone who lives in a place is a criminal.
Whether you like it or not, it's racist.
And if you want to hold up an example of how things can be better, the Israelis are NOT the group to be using as an example.
bass4funk
You're right, but given the facts that the majority of the high crimes are coming from the minority communities, you do racial profiling because of the people living in that community, if the crime rate were equally the same in the White community or let's say, Chicago was an all White community with the same crime rate and the police were equally as suspicious, we wouldn't be talking about this. Again, liberals really enjoy injecting race into anything and every issue. How about this, when people see Asians in a university, people think automatically they are geniuses. So is that racist as well? If it is, why is there No outrage? Because they,re not committing any crimes? There are Asians that are not as studious or underachievers, No one group likes to be stereotyped, but how we live, work and function in our daily lives around people and our peers is ultimately how society will see us. So if the police are cautious about going into Black neighborhoods and take extreme precaution and profile from the standpoint of historical violence in the high crime communities, it can be helped. I know this because my brother is a cop and deals with these issues on a daily basis. He could care less about race, but he's not going to take chances either if he has to go in these communities.
Sorry, I disagree, I think they are the best example to use.
SuperLib
At what point does ones skin color become light enough to be able to carry a gun around everywhere as you do?
Kurobune
C'mon guys, give the guy enough rope and he'll hang himself ! 1/20/17 - "Madame President" !
bass4funk
I already explained and went through that part.
onedragon
Wrong! It targets everyone. Research my friend.
Tokyo-Engr
@onedragon - It seems to target everyone....a few years ago a group of my friends went to NYC and experienced this first hand. They are primarily caucasian with one hispanic and an asian guy. Talking to them about this they seemed to think it was pretty random and no specific group was being spared (one did complain that since they were well dressed this should not have applied to them....which I did not agree with...if it is the rule...it is the rule).
I do not agree with stop and frisk. My reason is simple. It is a violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, regardless of what race, nationality, or creed is searched.
It is not an issue of politics or race for me. It is a constitutional issue.
Strangerland
It's a cyclic situation. As long as you treat minorities like secondary citizens, by doing things like stopping and frisking people based on their skin color, you tell your citizenry that it's ok to treat these people as secondary citizens. So the people react the same - "oh, he's black. He may be a criminal. I'm going going to hire him. I'm not going to rent to him. I don't want him living next to me" etc. So the minority then cannot get ahead, because they are treated like secondary citizens. A certain portion then will turn to crime, and gangs, where they can find acceptance, which you then use as justification to treat them as secondary citizens. Then you complain that they don't pull themselves out of the situation, when attitudes like yours are a major portion in what keeps them there in the first place.
But you're white, so it's ok right?
Yes, you should research:
In 2013, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 191,558 times.
In 2014, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 45,787 times.
In 2015, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 22,939 times.
Link: http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data
Betwen 85-90% of the stop and frisks in each of those years were for minorities. Clearly targeting minorities.
But you're white, so it's, because it happens to you too, right?
bass4funk
You're right and I agree with you, but would you rather return to the old days of NY about 30 years ago when you had close to 2000 murders a year and the city was consumed by total anarchy where people did what they wanted? You couldn't even walk through Central Park in the daytime sometimes for fear of being attacked. I for one, do NOT to see a return to those days! I'll deal with the Stiop and Frisk, it's not even an option for me, as long as it cuts down on crime and keeps us safe, I'm all for it.
I understand and that's a very valid point, no doubt.
Lizz
Depends on the judge at this point, and maybe the way a particular policy is written or applied. But properly written and properly applied, it’s constitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent.
Lizz
It is a local issue in any case and Trump should leave it to Giuliani to defend this particular proactive approach to street level policing.
bass4funk
Yes, it sad, but what can you do? No one wants to be profiled, but if I were a police chief, I would profile, Sheriff Clarke from Milwaukee does it, he's Black, he understands and gets it. So does that make him an Uncle Tom because he's leary of Black youth in ghetto areas? That's a joke, big cities like NY became the better for it, Chicago could use the same type of aggressive profiling that was used in NY, which was instrumental in making NY a livable place again.
Kabukilover
We end this quickly. Stop and frisk is unconstitutional.
bass4funk
You can either deal with your 4th amendment rights being violated or deal with rising crime that will come back amd make the city a living hell as it once was. I don't want NY to be like Chicago, they don't have Stop and Frisk, male the comparisons.
Strangerland
Oh, you are ok with constitutional rights being violated? In that case, we should take away all the guns, don't you agree?
SuperLib
How about violating 2nd Amendment rights instead?
Laguna
NY did away with stop-and-frisk over a decade ago. Meanwhile, crime rates continued falling. But that's just objective reality, something Trump supporters are pretty terrible at.
bass4funk
Nice try, in order to keep the public safe, stopping someone and frisking someone isn't doing irrevocable damage to them, I have been stopped before, I complied and then moved on. It was random, happens to everyone regardless of color, I know the cops are trying to keep us safe, so I don't worry at all or make a fuss about.
Only if Hillary becomes president.
@laguna
The department said burglary and car theft were at their lowest levels in more than 50 years. But murder, rape and robbery inched up.
Homicides rose from 333 in 2014 to 350 in 2015. But Bratton said 2015 was still the safest year in the city’s modern history.
Still way too much for my comfort. That number could be brought down further if we reinstate Stop and Frisk.
Strangerland
So please explain, why is it ok to violate some constitutional rights, and not others? What is the dividing line, and who determines which ones are ok to violate?
Tony Alderman
He's right.
bass4funk
Very easy, me as a law-abidin gun owner that enjoys hunting and collects and keeps a gun for my personal protection has nothing to do with a gang member, or a criminal thug that wants to shoot up and kill his rival or take revenge on someone in the manner of killing them for whatever reason suits them. There's a difference why Chicago is a cesspool of crime and NYC isn't anymore and one of the contributing factors is Stop and Frisk. In order to keep the public safe from the thugs, violating their civil rights is a small price to pay or for liberals, honering their 4th amendment right for the left is more important than profiling and pulling a suspicious person off to the side frisking them and then letting them go.
SuperLib
So we're going to build a wall, we're going to ban Muslim immigrants, we're going to stop and frisk minorities, we're going to start trade wars. All proposed by a man who mocks a disabled person and takes a picture with a taco salad.
Welcome to the GOP 2016. Let the YouTube links commence.
bass4funk
Meaning anyone fitting the profile of a jihadist.
Or we could do it the way the liberals want, turn out heads, let crime run amok, allow our enemies to further shove it up our.... Allow terrorism to continue, don't call it for what it is because we have to worry so much about being PC! Allow our cities to resemble Chicago and listen to a bunch of out of touch libs talking down to us as if we the people need lecturing and don't know what the heck we're talking about.
That's our other option.
Jimizo
The rights of citizens as set down in the constitution - whoop!
The rights of citizens as set down in the constitution - boo! Hiss!
Bass, as a man who served in the military defending the constitution, what exactly were you defending in your mind?
Serrano
Who here disagrees with what former New York Mayor and Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani said, responding to Donald Trump's call Sunday to profile Muslims:
"... profiling should be "based on hard facts that lead to the protection of the public," not on race, religion or sexual orientation. "We always profile. You could call me up and say a six-foot-two man with blonde hair and blue eyes is the killer, I profile white men with blue eyes and look for him."
Jimizo
"profiling should be "based on hard facts that lead to the protection of the public," not on race, religion or sexual orientation. "We always profile. You could call me up and say a six-foot-two man with blonde hair and blue eyes is the killer, I profile white men with blue eyes and look for him."
That sounds like Giuliani fantasizing about tall, blond, blue-eyed men while wearing his frock to me.
It is unconstitutional.
Lizz
NY did away with stop-and-frisk over a decade ago.
Stop and frisk was ended in New York (mostly) with a court decision just 2 or 3 years ago. It may have had some impact in the beginning, though, which is what Trump clarified today he was talking about -- drastic measures within what the Supreme Court has allowed to get the situation under control in Chicago.
Strangerland
Profiling ends up with dead innocents.
Look at that Terrance Crutcher, shot the other day. "That's a bad looking guy, he's probably on drugs" they said - or something along those lines.
He was unarmed, no drugs, a church goer. But he was black, and looked scary. They profiled him, and killed him.
But if you're white, nothing to worry about, so screw the constitution. Unless it's the second amendment, then it's the most important thing that ever was in the history of ever, anywhere, anytime.
Lizz
Serrano
"That sounds like Giuliani fantasizing about tall, blond, blue-eyed men while wearing his frock to me. It is unconstitutional"
Oh well. I guess we can forget about catching the tall, blond blue-eye killers then.
SuperLib
Bass I listed 4 very specific policy proposals from Trump. You responded with some random caricature of Democrats. Where would you like the discussion to go from here?
Strangerland
So once again we have Trump saying one thing in one situation, and another in another situation, and everyone is ok with it.
bass4funk
The constitution which doesn't mean that you can or should allow lawlessness and just like with anything, there are limits to everything in life and if that means making you temporary uncomfortable to ensure your safety and everyone else around you, then by definition, you are upholding the constitution.
That was a detailed response, specifically.
Lizz
Trump is responding to scrutiny, along with the public, case by case, officers' decisions to use lethal force. If police departments raise training standards and add restrictions to use-of-force policies, the perspective of a so-called reasonable officer might evolve as well but that is not ultimately a decision for the president to make.
Trump Questions Police Actions in Tulsa
Donald Trump says he doesn't know what a Tulsa police officer was thinking when she shot an unarmed black man. Speaking at a Cleveland Heights church, Trump said he's a "tremendous believer in the police," but strongly questioned that officer's actions. (Sept. 21)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQbhDJX8ZSY
Strangerland
I agree with him on that. The only problem is that with everything he has said, flip-flopping one way and then the other, it's impossible to know if he really thinks what he's saying, or if he's just pandering to his current audience. He always says whatever he thinks he wants his audience wants to hear.
bass4funk
Well, we had to deal with that for 8 years, welcome to my world, just a few more months until this president is gone.
Wolfpack
When did Ben Carson is a white supremacist?
SuperLib
One of the better anti-gun arguments I've heard.
Lizz
Strangerland
Yep.