Quote:
Originally Posted by plaster
Well I think you need to ask yourself an important question:
Rudy Giuliani is one of Trump's closest advisers. Rudy Giuliani is well respected as being the mayor that reduced crime and murder in NYC under his watch.
Trump is following the advice of Giuliani in saying stop and frisk should be used.
Libs are crying foul and all kinds of unconstitutional mumbo jumbo nonsense.
Here's a link for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-a..._New_York_City
Stop-and-frisk is not necessarily a new invention. In the early 1980s if a police officer had reasonable suspicion of a possible crime, he had the authority to stop someone and ask questions. If, based on the subject's answers, the suspicion level did not escalate to probable cause for an arrest, the person would be released immediately. This was only a "stop-and-question". The "frisk" part of the equation did not come into play except on two occasions: (1)If possession of a weapon was suspected, or (2)if reasonable suspicion of a possible crime escalated to probable cause to arrest for an actual crime based on facts developed after the initial stop-and-question. That all changed in the 1990s when CompStat was developed under then Police Commissioner William Bratton. High-ranking police officials widely incorporated the "stop, question and frisk".[10]
In 1990, William J. Bratton became head of the New York City Transit Police. Bratton described George L. Kelling as his "intellectual mentor", and implemented a zero tolerance policy because of his contributions to the development of the "broken windows theory". Republican former mayor Rudy Giuliani hired Bratton as his police commissioner who adopted the strategy more widely for use in New York City. Giuliani used Bratton and the massive expansion of the New York police department to crack down on crimes. Giuliani's "zero-tolerance" included a crackdown on fare evasion, public drinking, public urination, graffiti artists and the "squeegee men" (who had been wiping windshields of stopped cars and aggressively demanding payment).[11]
You can't make a case that 2+2=4. You can only use your common sense and knowledge of history.
Say you were to have watched msnbc only this past week and then asked about stop and frisk, and having absolutely no prior knowledge of the subject. Your only response would be that stop and frisk is unconstitutional, absolutely does not work, and Trump is a racist. That's really how bad the reporting has become, in the masses. |
When I read the wiki page it sounds like a zero-tolerance police and cracking down on certain things got the crime rate to drop. They then started stop and frisk and eventually it ended. If you read further in that wiki it also says fact checks show that it didn't really help.
All in all, we can argue all day as to whether it does or does not reduce crime. Trump is saying stop and frisk is going to be how he helps the black community. I feel like that will go over like a fart in a car. But, I guess we will find out. If Trump manages to win and puts this into action, once the lawsuits settle we will get to see if it helps or not. I think we will see more protests and riots.
Also, from that wiki it says in 2011 when they had the most stop and frisk occurnaces 88% of them resulted in no conviction. That is a lot of innocent people being stopped for "probable cause."