Trump will propose nationwide stop-and-frisk to address violence 2nite on Hannity

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Yes it does. It uses "reasonable suspicion" and falls short of Probable Cause to arrest.

What constitutes Reasonable Suspicion??? Sounds pretty nonspecific to me.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

For the second time... the policy was ruled in violation of the 4th and 14th a couple of years ago.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Watch the Hannity townhall that was taped earlier today when it airs. That's where he proposed it.

Trump calls for nationwide 'stop-and-frisk' policy

“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,” Trump told the questioner. “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 you could do.”

Now that you can't deny that he said it, what are your thoughts?

originally posted by: Morosus

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance

originally posted by: WilburnRoach

Is Trumps own words good enough for you people?

I missed the part where he proposed "nation wide" stop and frisk.

Is there more footage?

Or was the dishonest headline made up?

He made his statement in response to an audience member's question about what the New York businessman would do to reduce crime in predominantly black communities across the nation, said the two people, Geoff Betts and Connie Tucker.

From the Reuters story posted at the top of page 2.

I guess this is also a part of his "minority outreach" attempt. (facepalm)

So he wants "stop & frisk" programs throughout African American communities nationwide, deportation patrols in Hispanic American communities, and special databases and surveillance programs in Muslim American communities. Yet Republicans are always claiming it's the Democrats who are trying to take away our rights and implement a police state.

It's funny how those same right wingers will pretend that it doesn't make sense for minorities to vote for Democrats. But then they overwhelmingly nominate a candidate who proposes crap like this.

originally posted by: Morosus
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The question was about the nation. Not a leap that the answer was too?

I posted the question. The person doesn't say, "nation", they said, "the black community". That doesn't mean the OP is a lie, but I need to see the interview or whatever it was, to feel confident that Trump wants to do this nationwide. It's certainly not going to affect my vote, as I know he would gladly change the Constitution to suit him if possible. I just don't like sensationalized "news".

a reply to: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Stop and Frisk also removes Probable Cause and Violates the constitution.

No it doesn't, go tell New York City that and ask why they were able to do it.

Exactly what part of it was ruled unconstitutional do you not understand?

Center for Constitutional rights

originally posted by: imsoconfused

Well? What can I say? I definitely do not want Hillary as POTUS but I dont know if this guy will do any better.

Screwed if we do screwed if we dont.

Nationwide stop and frisk? WTF?

www.theguardian.com...

www.motherjones.com...

twitter.com...

Sure, let's just get into more racial profiling while the country is already on edge...a brilliant solution...NOT. Yet another nail in the coffin of his candidacy.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Exactly what part of it was ruled unconstitutional do you not understand?

It's Trump. Some don't want to. Hell, I'm sure there's a significant number below the border that would vote for Bill Cosby before Hillary.

a reply to: Kali74

I guess we can add the Fourth Amendment to the list of things Trump doesn't understand about the Constitution.

We can add the 4th amendment to a list of things you do not understand about the constitution.

Stop-and-Frisk

A brief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspect. The Fourth Amendment requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before stopping a suspect. If the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a frisk, a quick pat-down of the person’s outer clothing. See Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, (1967).
Source

Stop and Frisk is already in use in places like Chicago and New York, though being scaled back.

I oppose Stop and Frisk because it doesn't seem to work and it is open to abuse.

No problem in Michigan it's against our State Constitution. Like check lanes and stop light cameras.

If a nation wide stop and frisk were to ever be implemented the 1st thing I would do is go apply to be a cop.

If you cant beat em......

This is more than shooting himself in the foot,it's an R Budd Dwyer moment for his campaign!

Once he's off the script,his mouth doesn't engage the brain

I like Donald Trump. No matter how dumb something I do is, he still makes me feel like a freaking genius by comparison.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I suppose you would know better than judges and lawyers?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Stop and Frisk also removes Probable Cause and Violates the constitution.

No it doesn't, go tell New York City that and ask why they were able to do it.

Exactly what part of it was ruled unconstitutional do you not understand?

Center for Constitutional rights

The ruling was blocked.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I suppose you would know better than judges and lawyers?

No, would you?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You're talking about Stop-and-Frisk in theory there. In practice, Stop-and-Frisk is wholly unconstitutional. Being in a certain neighborhood, being a minority, walking on the sidewalk, etc certainly don't meet the legal standard of proof for reasonable suspicion which does require specific facts from which reasonable inferences can be made.

I'm pretty sure you realize that which is why you're against it and note that it's "open to abuse."

I don't think "open to abuse" quite covers the reality of Stop-and-Frisk programs in practice which have resulted in hundreds of thousands of unconsitutional searches over the years. When Trump says that the program has been a tremendous success or whatever his specific wording was, he's expressing the least bit of concern for the Fourth Amendment and quite to the contrary, it seems that his idea of "success" may very well require abuse.

In other words, if it wasn't rife with abuse, he wouldn't be interested in Stop-and-Frisk. Just my opinion.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You're talking about Stop-and-Frisk in theory there. In practice, Stop-and-Frisk is wholly unconstitutional. Being in a certain neighborhood, being a minority, walking on the sidewalk, etc certainly don't meet the legal standard of proof for reasonable suspicion which does require specific facts from which reasonable inferences can be made.

I'm pretty sure you realize that which is why you're against it and note that it's "open to abuse."

I don't think "open to abuse" quite covers the reality of Stop-and-Frisk programs in practice which have resulted in hundreds of thousands of unconsitutional searches over the years. When Trump says that the program has been a tremendous success or whatever his specific wording was, he's expressing the least bit of concern for the Fourth Amendment and quite to the contrary, it seems that his idea of "success" may very well require abuse.

In other words, if it wasn't rife with abuse, he wouldn't be interested in Stop-and-Frisk. Just my opinion.

I agree. But then again, not following the correct procedure in combination with upholding the 4th amendment is not stop and frisk, but something else entirely.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I agree. But then again, not following the correct procedure in combination with upholding the 4th amendment is not stop and frisk, but something else entirely.

Fair enough.

originally posted by: imsoconfused
Trump will propose nationwide stop-and-frisk to address violence 2nite on Hannity

Wow, that's some next level police state # right there! Trump looks set to trample on civil liberties as soon as he reaches the White House.