LESTER HOLT WAS WRONG ABOUT STOP AND FRISK - Wall Street Journal

[NYcarbineer]

and now i'll refer you to the 4th amendment which the right seems not to like.

lester wasn't wrong. thanks for playing

And until the Supreme Court rules stop and frisk by itself as unconstitutional, Holt (and his word games) is still wrong.

Thanks for playing.

You might want to actually read the ruling and then you should try to explain what Holt said, SPECIFICALLY, that was inaccurate.

Landmark Decision: Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory

It was the phrase "ruled unconstitutional in New York." I've explained it to you at least three different ways. It not that he's wrong, he was deceptive.

And you are incredibly dense.

He was not at all deceptive. Read the ruling.

 

[TemplarKormac]

and now i'll refer you to the 4th amendment which the right seems not to like.

lester wasn't wrong. thanks for playing

And until the Supreme Court rules stop and frisk by itself as unconstitutional, Holt (and his word games) is still wrong.

Thanks for playing.

You might want to actually read the ruling and then you should try to explain what Holt said, SPECIFICALLY, that was inaccurate.

Landmark Decision: Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory

It was the phrase "ruled unconstitutional in New York." I've explained it to you at least three different ways. It not that he's wrong, he was deceptive.

And you are incredibly dense.

He was not at all deceptive. Read the ruling.

I've read the ruling. My argument doesn't dispute the substance of the ruling. When someone hears the word unconstitutional, they think Supreme Court, not district court, and most likely will assume that the issue in question was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court without researching which court made the ruling. Holt never mentioned which court made the ruling. A simple play on the legal ignorance of the masses.

 

[NYcarbineer]

and now i'll refer you to the 4th amendment which the right seems not to like.

lester wasn't wrong. thanks for playing

And until the Supreme Court rules stop and frisk by itself as unconstitutional, Holt (and his word games) is still wrong.

Thanks for playing.

You might want to actually read the ruling and then you should try to explain what Holt said, SPECIFICALLY, that was inaccurate.

Landmark Decision: Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory

It was the phrase "ruled unconstitutional in New York." I've explained it to you at least three different ways. It not that he's wrong, he was deceptive.

And you are incredibly dense.

He was not at all deceptive. Read the ruling.

I've read the ruling. My argument doesn't dispute the substance of the ruling. When someone hears the word unconstitutional, they think Supreme Court, not district court, and most likely will assume that the issue in question is unconstitutional without researching which court made the ruling. Holt never mentioned which court made the ruling. A simple play on the legal ignorance of the masses.

You keep slicing and dicing like that and you're going to lose a finger.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And until the Supreme Court rules stop and frisk by itself as unconstitutional, Holt (and his word games) is still wrong.

Thanks for playing.

You might want to actually read the ruling and then you should try to explain what Holt said, SPECIFICALLY, that was inaccurate.

Landmark Decision: Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory

It was the phrase "ruled unconstitutional in New York." I've explained it to you at least three different ways. It not that he's wrong, he was deceptive.

And you are incredibly dense.

He was not at all deceptive. Read the ruling.

I've read the ruling. My argument doesn't dispute the substance of the ruling. When someone hears the word unconstitutional, they think Supreme Court, not district court, and most likely will assume that the issue in question is unconstitutional without researching which court made the ruling. Holt never mentioned which court made the ruling. A simple play on the legal ignorance of the masses.

You keep slicing and dicing like that and you're going to lose a finger.

Well how about I give you this finger

And vacate the thread.

 

[jillian]

and now i'll refer you to the 4th amendment which the right seems not to like.

lester wasn't wrong. thanks for playing

And until the Supreme Court rules stop and frisk by itself as unconstitutional, Holt (and his word games) is still wrong.

Thanks for playing.

You might want to actually read the ruling and then you should try to explain what Holt said, SPECIFICALLY, that was inaccurate.

Landmark Decision: Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory

It was the phrase "ruled unconstitutional in New York." I've explained it to you at least three different ways. It not that he's wrong, he was deceptive.

And you are incredibly dense.

did the court rule that it was unconstitutional or not?

and was that ruling overturned?

 

[AmericanFirst1]

The Feds should have stopped and frisked every one of those RWnuts at the Bundy standoff.

Why didn't they?

and now i'll refer you to the 4th amendment which the right seems not to like.

lester wasn't wrong. thanks for playing

And until the Supreme Court rules stop and frisk by itself as unconstitutional, Holt (and his word games) is still wrong.

Thanks for playing.

You are really an idiot. You've had it explained to you and you still don't get it. You're ineducable.

Explained by a libtard means it still means nothing.

 

[healthmyths]

and now i'll refer you to the 4th amendment which the right seems not to like.

lester wasn't wrong. thanks for playing

And until the Supreme Court rules stop and frisk by itself as unconstitutional, Holt (and his word games) is still wrong.

Thanks for playing.

You might want to actually read the ruling and then you should try to explain what Holt said, SPECIFICALLY, that was inaccurate.

Landmark Decision: Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory

It was the phrase "ruled unconstitutional in New York." I've explained it to you at least three different ways. It not that he's wrong, he was deceptive.

And you are incredibly dense.

did the court rule that it was unconstitutional or not?

and was that ruling overturned?

FACTS easy to get on the Internet!
NO it was never ruled on by SCOTUS the implication!

Is Stop-and-Frisk Unconstitutional?

Q: Was the police technique of “stop-and-frisk” found unconstitutional?

A: The practice is not unconstitutional, but a judge ruled in 2013 that New York City’s stop-and-frisk program was carried out in a manner that violated the U.S. Constitution.


FULL QUESTION
Was the police technique of “stop-and-frisk” found unconstitutional?

FULL ANSWER
We received several questions about the police practice known as “stop-and-frisk” after the first presidential debate between Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.


A few readers even wondered why we did not say in our debate story that Clinton and moderator Lester Holt were wrong when they said that stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York City. The reason is simple: Clinton and Holt were correct on that point.
In 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that city police violated the U.S. Constitution in the way that it carried out its stop-and-frisk program, calling it “a form of racial profiling” of young black and Hispanic men.

But we understand the confusion that some of our readers expressed because the judge did not rule the practice itself unconstitutional —
just the way that the city police had carried it out.

In fact, Judge Scheindlin pointedly wrote in her opinion that she was “not ordering an end to the practice of stop and frisk.” She said they could continue if the city complied with court-ordered remedies to make sure that the stops and frisks did not violate the Constitution. (Scheindlin called these “Terry stops,” referring to Terry v. Ohio, in which the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled that a police officer can stop and frisk individuals where there is a reasonable basis for suspicion.)

However, we did, in researching this Ask FactCheck, find that Clinton was wrong about one thing; Clinton falsely claimed at the debate that stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional “in part, because it was ineffective.” The judge did not consider the effectiveness of the program in making her decision.

“This Court’s mandate is solely to judge the constitutionality of police behavior, not its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool,” the judge wrote in her opinion.
In the executive summary of her opinion, Scheindlin wrote that there were 4.4 million stops made by New York City police between January 2004 and June 2012, and 83 percent of them were made of blacks and Hispanics — even though those racial groups represented 52 percent of the city’s population in 2010.

 

[healthmyths]

Anyway, to repeat myself again, stop and frisk wasn't ruled unconstitutional in New York, the practices of the NYC police department in carrying out stop and frisk were ruled unconstitutional. In essence, the way they carried out (the policies) stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional.

You are wrong:

Trump said: "you do stop and frisk, which worked very well, Mayor Giuliani is here, worked very well in New York."

Trump is directly referencing the stop and frisk practices of the NY police department,

and Holt said "Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men."

Holt is directly referencing the stop and frisk practices of the NY police department.

So the way Holt said it I'd assume that per what he said:"Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York," SCOTUS ruling is ONLY for New York?
So it is OK for the other 49 states?

Giuliani's policy, put into practice, was ruled unconstitutional. That is the policy that Trump touted in the debate.

. The results is what counts, and not this trying to tag them as racist for pure political purposes. If want to, we can go throughout many policies, the implementation of them, and I guarantee you we could sit there and twist them into being unconstitutional in some form or the other. Funny how the Constitution is so worried about by liberals, but any other time it is just a flippin piece of paper that has no meaning in the system today, and this according to libs who are trying every way they can to destroy the system and the Constitution when it applies to them.

That was the problem. Ghouliani's racial profiling stop and frisk policy was not statistically shown to be a reason for crime decreasing.

How in the hell do you know??? Where is your source for that dumb ass comment???

Now for the FACTS for idiots like you!!!

Trump is correct that the murder rate has plummeted in New York City in the last two decades.
But the same could be said for many other large American cities during the same period, and there's no way to credit stop-and-frisk for the decline.

Stop-and-frisk was a popular tactic for much of the last 15 years in New York City. But even as it's fallen out of favor under the administration of Mayor de Blasio, the murder rate remains a long way off from where it was in the 1990s, when it topped 2,000 a year. City police department statistics show there were 352 murders and non-negligent homicides in 2015, compared with 673 in 2000 and 539 in 2005.
The NYPD weighed in on stop-and-frisk during the debate and said stops are down 97 percent since 2011. As stops declined, so did crime, which disputes Trump's claim.

Source: Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk and Crime Rates in NYC | NBC New York Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk in NYC

So you idiots and stupid people like the above just seem to forget a very very fundamental FACT!
Let's use a simple analogy....
Assume bad guys on the streets carry guns because no one is stopping them and frisking.
Assume you are walking down the street and see these same bad guys carrying guns.
Do you continue to walk down the street? Or do you cross over to the other side?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are wrong:

Trump said: "you do stop and frisk, which worked very well, Mayor Giuliani is here, worked very well in New York."

Trump is directly referencing the stop and frisk practices of the NY police department,

and Holt said "Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men."

Holt is directly referencing the stop and frisk practices of the NY police department.

So the way Holt said it I'd assume that per what he said:"Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York," SCOTUS ruling is ONLY for New York?
So it is OK for the other 49 states?

Giuliani's policy, put into practice, was ruled unconstitutional. That is the policy that Trump touted in the debate.

. The results is what counts, and not this trying to tag them as racist for pure political purposes. If want to, we can go throughout many policies, the implementation of them, and I guarantee you we could sit there and twist them into being unconstitutional in some form or the other. Funny how the Constitution is so worried about by liberals, but any other time it is just a flippin piece of paper that has no meaning in the system today, and this according to libs who are trying every way they can to destroy the system and the Constitution when it applies to them.

That was the problem. Ghouliani's racial profiling stop and frisk policy was not statistically shown to be a reason for crime decreasing.

How in the hell do you know??? Where is your source for that dumb ass comment???

Now for the FACTS for idiots like you!!!

Trump is correct that the murder rate has plummeted in New York City in the last two decades.
But the same could be said for many other large American cities during the same period, and there's no way to credit stop-and-frisk for the decline.

Stop-and-frisk was a popular tactic for much of the last 15 years in New York City. But even as it's fallen out of favor under the administration of Mayor de Blasio, the murder rate remains a long way off from where it was in the 1990s, when it topped 2,000 a year. City police department statistics show there were 352 murders and non-negligent homicides in 2015, compared with 673 in 2000 and 539 in 2005.
The NYPD weighed in on stop-and-frisk during the debate and said stops are down 97 percent since 2011. As stops declined, so did crime, which disputes Trump's claim.

Source: Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk and Crime Rates in NYC | NBC New York Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk in NYC

So you idiots and stupid people like the above just seem to forget a very very fundamental FACT!
Let's use a simple analogy....
Assume bad guys on the streets carry guns because no one is stopping them and frisking.
Assume you are walking down the street and see these same bad guys carrying guns.
Do you continue to walk down the street? Or do you cross over to the other side?

What happened to conservatives' love of open carry?

 

[TooTall]

So the way Holt said it I'd assume that per what he said:"Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York," SCOTUS ruling is ONLY for New York?
So it is OK for the other 49 states?

Giuliani's policy, put into practice, was ruled unconstitutional. That is the policy that Trump touted in the debate.

. The results is what counts, and not this trying to tag them as racist for pure political purposes. If want to, we can go throughout many policies, the implementation of them, and I guarantee you we could sit there and twist them into being unconstitutional in some form or the other. Funny how the Constitution is so worried about by liberals, but any other time it is just a flippin piece of paper that has no meaning in the system today, and this according to libs who are trying every way they can to destroy the system and the Constitution when it applies to them.

That was the problem. Ghouliani's racial profiling stop and frisk policy was not statistically shown to be a reason for crime decreasing.

How in the hell do you know??? Where is your source for that dumb ass comment???

Now for the FACTS for idiots like you!!!

Trump is correct that the murder rate has plummeted in New York City in the last two decades.
But the same could be said for many other large American cities during the same period, and there's no way to credit stop-and-frisk for the decline.

Stop-and-frisk was a popular tactic for much of the last 15 years in New York City. But even as it's fallen out of favor under the administration of Mayor de Blasio, the murder rate remains a long way off from where it was in the 1990s, when it topped 2,000 a year. City police department statistics show there were 352 murders and non-negligent homicides in 2015, compared with 673 in 2000 and 539 in 2005.
The NYPD weighed in on stop-and-frisk during the debate and said stops are down 97 percent since 2011. As stops declined, so did crime, which disputes Trump's claim.

Source: Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk and Crime Rates in NYC | NBC New York Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk in NYC

So you idiots and stupid people like the above just seem to forget a very very fundamental FACT!
Let's use a simple analogy....
Assume bad guys on the streets carry guns because no one is stopping them and frisking.
Assume you are walking down the street and see these same bad guys carrying guns.
Do you continue to walk down the street? Or do you cross over to the other side?

What happened to conservatives' love of open carry?

Do they have open carry in New York City?

 

[healthmyths]

So the way Holt said it I'd assume that per what he said:"Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York," SCOTUS ruling is ONLY for New York?
So it is OK for the other 49 states?

Giuliani's policy, put into practice, was ruled unconstitutional. That is the policy that Trump touted in the debate.

. The results is what counts, and not this trying to tag them as racist for pure political purposes. If want to, we can go throughout many policies, the implementation of them, and I guarantee you we could sit there and twist them into being unconstitutional in some form or the other. Funny how the Constitution is so worried about by liberals, but any other time it is just a flippin piece of paper that has no meaning in the system today, and this according to libs who are trying every way they can to destroy the system and the Constitution when it applies to them.

That was the problem. Ghouliani's racial profiling stop and frisk policy was not statistically shown to be a reason for crime decreasing.

How in the hell do you know??? Where is your source for that dumb ass comment???

Now for the FACTS for idiots like you!!!

Trump is correct that the murder rate has plummeted in New York City in the last two decades.
But the same could be said for many other large American cities during the same period, and there's no way to credit stop-and-frisk for the decline.

Stop-and-frisk was a popular tactic for much of the last 15 years in New York City. But even as it's fallen out of favor under the administration of Mayor de Blasio, the murder rate remains a long way off from where it was in the 1990s, when it topped 2,000 a year. City police department statistics show there were 352 murders and non-negligent homicides in 2015, compared with 673 in 2000 and 539 in 2005.
The NYPD weighed in on stop-and-frisk during the debate and said stops are down 97 percent since 2011. As stops declined, so did crime, which disputes Trump's claim.

Source: Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk and Crime Rates in NYC | NBC New York Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk in NYC

So you idiots and stupid people like the above just seem to forget a very very fundamental FACT!
Let's use a simple analogy....
Assume bad guys on the streets carry guns because no one is stopping them and frisking.
Assume you are walking down the street and see these same bad guys carrying guns.
Do you continue to walk down the street? Or do you cross over to the other side?

What happened to conservatives' love of open carry?

Not a problem THEN!
If I a legal law abiding citizen could have a gun in NYC I'd be able to confidently walk down the same street!
Good point!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Giuliani's policy, put into practice, was ruled unconstitutional. That is the policy that Trump touted in the debate.

. The results is what counts, and not this trying to tag them as racist for pure political purposes. If want to, we can go throughout many policies, the implementation of them, and I guarantee you we could sit there and twist them into being unconstitutional in some form or the other. Funny how the Constitution is so worried about by liberals, but any other time it is just a flippin piece of paper that has no meaning in the system today, and this according to libs who are trying every way they can to destroy the system and the Constitution when it applies to them.

That was the problem. Ghouliani's racial profiling stop and frisk policy was not statistically shown to be a reason for crime decreasing.

How in the hell do you know??? Where is your source for that dumb ass comment???

Now for the FACTS for idiots like you!!!

Trump is correct that the murder rate has plummeted in New York City in the last two decades.
But the same could be said for many other large American cities during the same period, and there's no way to credit stop-and-frisk for the decline.

Stop-and-frisk was a popular tactic for much of the last 15 years in New York City. But even as it's fallen out of favor under the administration of Mayor de Blasio, the murder rate remains a long way off from where it was in the 1990s, when it topped 2,000 a year. City police department statistics show there were 352 murders and non-negligent homicides in 2015, compared with 673 in 2000 and 539 in 2005.
The NYPD weighed in on stop-and-frisk during the debate and said stops are down 97 percent since 2011. As stops declined, so did crime, which disputes Trump's claim.

Source: Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk and Crime Rates in NYC | NBC New York Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk in NYC

So you idiots and stupid people like the above just seem to forget a very very fundamental FACT!
Let's use a simple analogy....
Assume bad guys on the streets carry guns because no one is stopping them and frisking.
Assume you are walking down the street and see these same bad guys carrying guns.
Do you continue to walk down the street? Or do you cross over to the other side?

What happened to conservatives' love of open carry?

Do they have open carry in New York City?

That wasn't the point dumbass. You're opposed to open carry then I take it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Giuliani's policy, put into practice, was ruled unconstitutional. That is the policy that Trump touted in the debate.

. The results is what counts, and not this trying to tag them as racist for pure political purposes. If want to, we can go throughout many policies, the implementation of them, and I guarantee you we could sit there and twist them into being unconstitutional in some form or the other. Funny how the Constitution is so worried about by liberals, but any other time it is just a flippin piece of paper that has no meaning in the system today, and this according to libs who are trying every way they can to destroy the system and the Constitution when it applies to them.

That was the problem. Ghouliani's racial profiling stop and frisk policy was not statistically shown to be a reason for crime decreasing.

How in the hell do you know??? Where is your source for that dumb ass comment???

Now for the FACTS for idiots like you!!!

Trump is correct that the murder rate has plummeted in New York City in the last two decades.
But the same could be said for many other large American cities during the same period, and there's no way to credit stop-and-frisk for the decline.

Stop-and-frisk was a popular tactic for much of the last 15 years in New York City. But even as it's fallen out of favor under the administration of Mayor de Blasio, the murder rate remains a long way off from where it was in the 1990s, when it topped 2,000 a year. City police department statistics show there were 352 murders and non-negligent homicides in 2015, compared with 673 in 2000 and 539 in 2005.
The NYPD weighed in on stop-and-frisk during the debate and said stops are down 97 percent since 2011. As stops declined, so did crime, which disputes Trump's claim.

Source: Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk and Crime Rates in NYC | NBC New York Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk in NYC

So you idiots and stupid people like the above just seem to forget a very very fundamental FACT!
Let's use a simple analogy....
Assume bad guys on the streets carry guns because no one is stopping them and frisking.
Assume you are walking down the street and see these same bad guys carrying guns.
Do you continue to walk down the street? Or do you cross over to the other side?

What happened to conservatives' love of open carry?

Not a problem THEN!
If I a legal law abiding citizen could have a gun in NYC I'd be able to confidently walk down the same street!
Good point!

Do the police know you're law abiding. What if the police stop and frisk every armed citizen in an open carry city?

 

[jon_berzerk]

re

. The results is what counts, and not this trying to tag them as racist for pure political purposes. If want to, we can go throughout many policies, the implementation of them, and I guarantee you we could sit there and twist them into being unconstitutional in some form or the other. Funny how the Constitution is so worried about by liberals, but any other time it is just a flippin piece of paper that has no meaning in the system today, and this according to libs who are trying every way they can to destroy the system and the Constitution when it applies to them.

That was the problem. Ghouliani's racial profiling stop and frisk policy was not statistically shown to be a reason for crime decreasing.

How in the hell do you know??? Where is your source for that dumb ass comment???

Now for the FACTS for idiots like you!!!

Trump is correct that the murder rate has plummeted in New York City in the last two decades.
But the same could be said for many other large American cities during the same period, and there's no way to credit stop-and-frisk for the decline.

Stop-and-frisk was a popular tactic for much of the last 15 years in New York City. But even as it's fallen out of favor under the administration of Mayor de Blasio, the murder rate remains a long way off from where it was in the 1990s, when it topped 2,000 a year. City police department statistics show there were 352 murders and non-negligent homicides in 2015, compared with 673 in 2000 and 539 in 2005.
The NYPD weighed in on stop-and-frisk during the debate and said stops are down 97 percent since 2011. As stops declined, so did crime, which disputes Trump's claim.

Source: Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk and Crime Rates in NYC | NBC New York Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk in NYC

So you idiots and stupid people like the above just seem to forget a very very fundamental FACT!
Let's use a simple analogy....
Assume bad guys on the streets carry guns because no one is stopping them and frisking.
Assume you are walking down the street and see these same bad guys carrying guns.
Do you continue to walk down the street? Or do you cross over to the other side?

What happened to conservatives' love of open carry?

Not a problem THEN!
If I a legal law abiding citizen could have a gun in NYC I'd be able to confidently walk down the same street!
Good point!

Do the police know you're law abiding. What if the police stop and frisk every armed citizen in an open carry city?

so what if you are law abiding you move on

if your a criminal you move on to the big house

 

[NYcarbineer]

re

That was the problem. Ghouliani's racial profiling stop and frisk policy was not statistically shown to be a reason for crime decreasing.

How in the hell do you know??? Where is your source for that dumb ass comment???

Now for the FACTS for idiots like you!!!

Trump is correct that the murder rate has plummeted in New York City in the last two decades.
But the same could be said for many other large American cities during the same period, and there's no way to credit stop-and-frisk for the decline.

Stop-and-frisk was a popular tactic for much of the last 15 years in New York City. But even as it's fallen out of favor under the administration of Mayor de Blasio, the murder rate remains a long way off from where it was in the 1990s, when it topped 2,000 a year. City police department statistics show there were 352 murders and non-negligent homicides in 2015, compared with 673 in 2000 and 539 in 2005.
The NYPD weighed in on stop-and-frisk during the debate and said stops are down 97 percent since 2011. As stops declined, so did crime, which disputes Trump's claim.

Source: Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk and Crime Rates in NYC | NBC New York Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk in NYC

So you idiots and stupid people like the above just seem to forget a very very fundamental FACT!
Let's use a simple analogy....
Assume bad guys on the streets carry guns because no one is stopping them and frisking.
Assume you are walking down the street and see these same bad guys carrying guns.
Do you continue to walk down the street? Or do you cross over to the other side?

What happened to conservatives' love of open carry?

Not a problem THEN!
If I a legal law abiding citizen could have a gun in NYC I'd be able to confidently walk down the same street!
Good point!

Do the police know you're law abiding. What if the police stop and frisk every armed citizen in an open carry city?

so what if you are law abiding you move on

if your a criminal you move on to the big house

lol, really? So you think the NRA and the gun rights nuts would have no objection to gun carriers being accosted by the police every time they're seen armed?

 

[jon_berzerk]

re

How in the hell do you know??? Where is your source for that dumb ass comment???

Now for the FACTS for idiots like you!!!

Trump is correct that the murder rate has plummeted in New York City in the last two decades.
But the same could be said for many other large American cities during the same period, and there's no way to credit stop-and-frisk for the decline.

Stop-and-frisk was a popular tactic for much of the last 15 years in New York City. But even as it's fallen out of favor under the administration of Mayor de Blasio, the murder rate remains a long way off from where it was in the 1990s, when it topped 2,000 a year. City police department statistics show there were 352 murders and non-negligent homicides in 2015, compared with 673 in 2000 and 539 in 2005.
The NYPD weighed in on stop-and-frisk during the debate and said stops are down 97 percent since 2011. As stops declined, so did crime, which disputes Trump's claim.

Source: Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk and Crime Rates in NYC | NBC New York Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk in NYC

So you idiots and stupid people like the above just seem to forget a very very fundamental FACT!
Let's use a simple analogy....
Assume bad guys on the streets carry guns because no one is stopping them and frisking.
Assume you are walking down the street and see these same bad guys carrying guns.
Do you continue to walk down the street? Or do you cross over to the other side?

What happened to conservatives' love of open carry?

Not a problem THEN!
If I a legal law abiding citizen could have a gun in NYC I'd be able to confidently walk down the same street!
Good point!

Do the police know you're law abiding. What if the police stop and frisk every armed citizen in an open carry city?

so what if you are law abiding you move on

if your a criminal you move on to the big house

lol, really? So you think the NRA and the gun rights nuts would have no objection to gun carriers being accosted by the police every time they're seen armed?

why are you so nuts why would they need to frisk you when the firearm is in plain sight dopy

 

[NYcarbineer]

re

What happened to conservatives' love of open carry?

Not a problem THEN!
If I a legal law abiding citizen could have a gun in NYC I'd be able to confidently walk down the same street!
Good point!

Do the police know you're law abiding. What if the police stop and frisk every armed citizen in an open carry city?

so what if you are law abiding you move on

if your a criminal you move on to the big house

lol, really? So you think the NRA and the gun rights nuts would have no objection to gun carriers being accosted by the police every time they're seen armed?

why are you so nuts why would they need to frisk you when the firearm is in plain sight dopy

They would stop you and demand you prove your gun is legal.

 

[jon_berzerk]

re

Not a problem THEN!
If I a legal law abiding citizen could have a gun in NYC I'd be able to confidently walk down the same street!
Good point!

Do the police know you're law abiding. What if the police stop and frisk every armed citizen in an open carry city?

so what if you are law abiding you move on

if your a criminal you move on to the big house

lol, really? So you think the NRA and the gun rights nuts would have no objection to gun carriers being accosted by the police every time they're seen armed?

why are you so nuts why would they need to frisk you when the firearm is in plain sight dopy

They would stop you and demand you prove your gun is legal.

so what

easily verifiable in seconds

 

[Votto]

I'm sure his apology to Trump is forthcoming...

Fact-Checking Lester Holt (WALL STREET JOURNAL)

We told you Tuesday that Donald Trump was right when he pushed back on debate moderator Lester Holt over “stop and frisk” policing. But the story deserves a more complete explanation, not least because the media are distorting the record.

Mr. Trump invoked stop and frisk as a way to “take the gun away from criminals” in high-crime areas and protect the innocent. That provoked Mr. Holt, who said that “stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York.” Mr. Trump then noted that the ruling in the case came from a “very against police judge” who later had the case taken away from her. Mrs. Clinton then echoed Mr. Holt.

Here’s what really happened. The federal judge in the stop-and-frisk case was Shira Scheindlin, a notorious police critic whose behavior got her taken off the case by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court put it this way:


“Upon review of the record in these cases, we conclude that the District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges . . . and that the appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation was compromised by the District Judge’s improper application of the Court’s ‘related case rule’ . . . and by a series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court.”

The court then remanded the case to another judge who would not present an appearance of bias against the police. In a follow-up opinion, the appellate judges cited a New Yorker interview with Judge Scheindlin that included a quote from a former law clerk saying “what you have to remember about the judge is that she thinks cops lie.”

This is an extraordinary rebuke by a higher court and raises doubts that the merits of her ruling would have held up on appeal. As Rudolph Giuliani makes clear nearby, the judge’s ruling of unconstitutionality applied only to stop and frisk as it was practiced in New York at the time. Such police search tactics have long been upheld by higher courts.

In the end, the clock ran out on Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and new Mayor Bill de Blasio chose not to appeal. We rate Mr. Trump’s claim true and unfairly second-guessed by a moderator who didn’t give the viewing public all the facts.

Trump should take 2 minutes to bash him along with the rest of the press.

Mistake? Pfft.

 

[TooTall]

. The results is what counts, and not this trying to tag them as racist for pure political purposes. If want to, we can go throughout many policies, the implementation of them, and I guarantee you we could sit there and twist them into being unconstitutional in some form or the other. Funny how the Constitution is so worried about by liberals, but any other time it is just a flippin piece of paper that has no meaning in the system today, and this according to libs who are trying every way they can to destroy the system and the Constitution when it applies to them.

That was the problem. Ghouliani's racial profiling stop and frisk policy was not statistically shown to be a reason for crime decreasing.

How in the hell do you know??? Where is your source for that dumb ass comment???

Now for the FACTS for idiots like you!!!

Trump is correct that the murder rate has plummeted in New York City in the last two decades.
But the same could be said for many other large American cities during the same period, and there's no way to credit stop-and-frisk for the decline.

Stop-and-frisk was a popular tactic for much of the last 15 years in New York City. But even as it's fallen out of favor under the administration of Mayor de Blasio, the murder rate remains a long way off from where it was in the 1990s, when it topped 2,000 a year. City police department statistics show there were 352 murders and non-negligent homicides in 2015, compared with 673 in 2000 and 539 in 2005.
The NYPD weighed in on stop-and-frisk during the debate and said stops are down 97 percent since 2011. As stops declined, so did crime, which disputes Trump's claim.

Source: Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk and Crime Rates in NYC | NBC New York Debate Fact Check: Trump on Stop-and-Frisk in NYC

So you idiots and stupid people like the above just seem to forget a very very fundamental FACT!
Let's use a simple analogy....
Assume bad guys on the streets carry guns because no one is stopping them and frisking.
Assume you are walking down the street and see these same bad guys carrying guns.
Do you continue to walk down the street? Or do you cross over to the other side?

What happened to conservatives' love of open carry?

Do they have open carry in New York City?

That wasn't the point dumbass. You're opposed to open carry then I take it.

What was the point?