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

[jillian]

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.

the reality is that the merits of the ruling have never been appealed. they stand as law. apparently the author of the article doesn't understand that.

and it's not like trump has any understanding of the law anyway.... remember, he's the guy who thinks we should steal oil from another country.

Do you include enforcing the immigration laws set forth in the Constitution? It violates the Constitution to not enforce those laws, right?

Lester was wrong.

prosecutorial discretion always gives prosecutors the right (or any authority the right) to decide who they will deal with.

the fact that you're confused between the actual constitutional requirement of probable cause for a search (or minimally reaonsable suspicion for a non-invasive stop which these weren't) and your xenophic wishes is why uneducated angry white males like dumb Donald.

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

lester wasn't wrong. thanks for playing

 

[jillian]

What did Holt say that wasn't true?

He essentially implied that stop and frisk itself was ruled unconstitutional, when in fact it was only the way the NYC police carried it out that was ruled unconstitutional. Stop and frisk was never ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter. That was very deceptive. When someone tells only half the truth, it is still a lie.

NY's stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional and that was the stop and frisk Trump referred to.

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?

as of now, the only case dealing with the issue is in new York. until the supreme court reverses it, it's law... if not binding precedent, it's at least authoritative.

you still confused about that whole court structure thing?

 

[beagle9]

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.

the reality is that the merits of the ruling have never been appealed. they stand as law. apparently the author of the article doesn't understand that.

and it's not like trump has any understanding of the law anyway.... remember, he's the guy who thinks we should steal oil from another country.

Do you include enforcing the immigration laws set forth in the Constitution? It violates the Constitution to not enforce those laws, right?

Lester was wrong.

prosecutorial discretion always gives prosecutors the right (or any authority the right) to decide who they will deal with.

the fact that you're confused between the actual constitutional requirement of probable cause for a search (or minimally reaonsable suspicion for a non-invasive stop which these weren't) and your xenophic wishes is why uneducated angry white males like dumb Donald.

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

lester wasn't wrong. thanks for playing

. Lester was trying to use it to paint Trump a racist, and that's what showed Lester to be a racist, and that's what made it wrong.

 

[bendog]

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.

That's an editorial by a fairly RW newspaper.

LOL

No doubt that the cops can stop a person with some suspicion, and they may pat him down for their own safety. Trump and Ms. Ghouliani's proplem comes when you mix that with racial profiling.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What did Holt say that wasn't true?

He essentially implied that stop and frisk itself was ruled unconstitutional, when in fact it was only the way the NYC police carried it out that was ruled unconstitutional. Stop and frisk was never ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter. That was very deceptive. When someone tells only half the truth, it is still a lie.

NY's stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional and that was the stop and frisk Trump referred to.

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.

 

[beagle9]

He essentially implied that stop and frisk itself was ruled unconstitutional, when in fact it was only the way the NYC police carried it out that was ruled unconstitutional. Stop and frisk was never ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter. That was very deceptive. When someone tells only half the truth, it is still a lie.

NY's stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional and that was the stop and frisk Trump referred to.

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.

 

[ColonelAngus]

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.

the reality is that the merits of the ruling have never been appealed. they stand as law. apparently the author of the article doesn't understand that.

and it's not like trump has any understanding of the law anyway.... remember, he's the guy who thinks we should steal oil from another country.

Do you include enforcing the immigration laws set forth in the Constitution? It violates the Constitution to not enforce those laws, right?

Lester was wrong.

prosecutorial discretion always gives prosecutors the right (or any authority the right) to decide who they will deal with.

the fact that you're confused between the actual constitutional requirement of probable cause for a search (or minimally reaonsable suspicion for a non-invasive stop which these weren't) and your xenophic wishes is why uneducated angry white males like dumb Donald.

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

lester wasn't wrong. thanks for playing

In what municipalities is it legal?

 

[bendog]

NY's stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional and that was the stop and frisk Trump referred to.

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.

 

[beagle9]

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.

. You call it racial profiling, but what it is in high crime areas is criminal profiling. Do you think that the police who worked these areas, didn't know the difference between who is a suspect and who is not in the specific areas in which innocent blacks were so glad that they had these officers black and white trying to help make their neighborhoods safe in ???

 

[AmericanFirst1]

so your advocating more racist police tactics? who cares if its unconstitutional or not? Advocates against stop and frisk aren't retards who hide behind legal loopholes. There are real reasons why stop and frisk should be stopped and whether or not the judge who ruled it unconsitutional or not was biased against cops, isn't one of them and shouldn't matter. It is a distraction from the issue and couldn't be more of a non-answer. You would think with protests in every major city against racist police violence that suggesting a policy that was ruled was ruled racist and unconstiutional would be the last thing a major politician would tie himself too. Much less one who has already been accused of racism multiple times, for mutliple reasons.

I guess we can add the fact that Donald supports stop and frisk, to the long list of reasons of why donald trump is racist. Thanks to nothing but his own ignorant, undeducated, big mouth

Went right over you're hollow head didn't it? Trump was right. Libtards are the racist pukes.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

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.

The problem is libtards who are too stupid to do the right thing. Commie bastards.

 

[beagle9]

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.

The problem is libtards who are too stupid to do the right thing. Commie bastards.

. People left to their own devices for to long, end up a mob with no direction in life anymore. The only thing that controls the mob is the laws in which are enforced to keep the peace until a balance is found again, and slowly the poor souls are rescued if their desires are to be rescued. Such as with Lybia and the anarchy there, we don't want that here, and we won't stand for it here no matter what.

 

[TooTall]

OK so I clicked on your link...
No gun store has opened in the city yet. That means that every gun owned legally or illegally came from somewhere else. Just how many is unclear, but Chicago's police department seizes more illegal weapons than any other in the nation — nearly 20 a day for a total of 5,500 so far this year.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel released a report that blames gun sales elsewhere for much of Chicago's street violence.
It said nearly 60 percent of recovered guns used to commit crimes in Chicago from 2009 through 2013 were first sold in states with more lax gun laws. Neighboring Indiana was the biggest source, with 19 percent of all recovered guns having been sold there first. But they came from far and wide, with Mississippi second at 6.7 percent

Let me get this straight. You and this article say it is a myth Chicago has strict gun laws.... YET the mayor says gun sales are from states with more lax gun laws???

Does that make any sense? If there are lax gun laws in Chicago then why go to other states to buy guns?

You can't have it both ways !

Its a myth that they have stongest gun laws in america, especially since you can take a 15 minute drive to a state with almost no gun laws whatsoever, do you think criminals don't know how to drive cars yet? also chicago doesn't have near the highest murder rate in America, republicans spread these lies about it being the most violent city and having the strictest gun laws because obama is from chicago.and like you theyre lying racist assholes with no self respect

Nigga please...how many people have died in Chicago this year?

theyre not even in the top 10 highest murder rate

List of United States cities by crime rate (2014) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Even as homicides have spiked in a number of cities, following increases in bloodshed in many of the same places last year, the situation in Chicago has stood out through sheer scale. The country’s third-biggest city has had more homicides this year than the only two bigger American cities — New York and Los Angeles — combined.

Chicago has had more homicides this year than New York and Los Angeles combined

thats because they have more people, homicide rates are lower than over a dozen us cities, Stlouis detroit new orleans and baltimore all have higher murder rates

More people were KILLED dead in Chicago. All of the cities you mentioned have one thing in common. St Louis, Democrat Mayors since 1949, Baltimore. Democrat Mayors since 1947, and New Orleans, Democrat Mayors since 1900.

 

[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.

 

[beagle9]

Its a myth that they have stongest gun laws in america, especially since you can take a 15 minute drive to a state with almost no gun laws whatsoever, do you think criminals don't know how to drive cars yet? also chicago doesn't have near the highest murder rate in America, republicans spread these lies about it being the most violent city and having the strictest gun laws because obama is from chicago.and like you theyre lying racist assholes with no self respect

Nigga please...how many people have died in Chicago this year?

theyre not even in the top 10 highest murder rate

List of United States cities by crime rate (2014) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Even as homicides have spiked in a number of cities, following increases in bloodshed in many of the same places last year, the situation in Chicago has stood out through sheer scale. The country’s third-biggest city has had more homicides this year than the only two bigger American cities — New York and Los Angeles — combined.

Chicago has had more homicides this year than New York and Los Angeles combined

thats because they have more people, homicide rates are lower than over a dozen us cities, Stlouis detroit new orleans and baltimore all have higher murder rates

More people were KILLED dead in Chicago. All of the cities you mentioned have one thing in common. St Louis, Democrat Mayors since 1949, Baltimore. Democrat Mayors since 1947, and New Orleans, Democrat Mayors since 1900.

. Yes "D" as in the do gooders who ain't got enough sense to poor water out a boot with the instructions written on the heel.

 

[TooTall]

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

Why didn't they?

 

[TooTall]

It is interesting that you blame Republcans for gun control. The strictest gun laws in the country are in Chicago and Democrats have ruled there for decades. That last GOP Mayor was elected in 1927.

thats a myth Chicago gun laws not as strict as GOP candidates claim

OK so I clicked on your link...
No gun store has opened in the city yet. That means that every gun owned legally or illegally came from somewhere else. Just how many is unclear, but Chicago's police department seizes more illegal weapons than any other in the nation — nearly 20 a day for a total of 5,500 so far this year.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel released a report that blames gun sales elsewhere for much of Chicago's street violence.
It said nearly 60 percent of recovered guns used to commit crimes in Chicago from 2009 through 2013 were first sold in states with more lax gun laws. Neighboring Indiana was the biggest source, with 19 percent of all recovered guns having been sold there first. But they came from far and wide, with Mississippi second at 6.7 percent

Let me get this straight. You and this article say it is a myth Chicago has strict gun laws.... YET the mayor says gun sales are from states with more lax gun laws???

Does that make any sense? If there are lax gun laws in Chicago then why go to other states to buy guns?

You can't have it both ways !

Its a myth that they have stongest gun laws in america, especially since you can take a 15 minute drive to a state with almost no gun laws whatsoever, do you think criminals don't know how to drive cars yet? also chicago doesn't have near the highest murder rate in America, republicans spread these lies about it being the most violent city and having the strictest gun laws because obama is from chicago.and like you theyre lying racist assholes with no self respect

Nigga please...how many people have died in Chicago this year?

theyre not even in the top 10 highest murder rate

List of United States cities by crime rate (2014) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chicago is the third largest city and have more total gun deaths than the first and second largest cities combined. Who gives a ratsass about murder rate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

 

[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

 

[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.