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

[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.

 

[PurpleOwl]

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

 

[ColonelAngus]

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

Stop and Frisk in an all black neighborhood would disproportionately target blacks, I know.

Its amazing how racist the country is, I know. Whitey making the black man kill his fellow black man in Chicago.

 

[PurpleOwl]

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

Stop and Frisk in an all black neighborhood would disproportionately target blacks, I know.

Its amazing how racist the country is, I know. Whitey making the black man kill his fellow black man in Chicago.

what?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Holt was right. It was ruled unconstitutional.

The program doesn't work.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

What was Holt wrong on?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can't we just use the standard RW'er tactic here and dismiss the factcheck because the WSJ is conservative?

 

[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.

 

[rdean]

The judge ruled it unconstitutional. The city protested. The protest was sent to a new judge by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The new judge left the first judge's order stand. Meaning it was ruled unconstitutional.

Now, was that so hard?

 

[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.

 

[healthmyths]

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

Talk about "UNEDUCATED"!!!
FACT:
By Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
(Who by the way as Obama once said "did I mention, Williams is black"???

The truth is that black female-headed households were just 18 percent of households in 1950, as opposed to about 68 percent today.
In fact, from 1890 to 1940, the black marriage rate was slightly higher than that of whites.
Even during slavery, when marriage was forbidden for blacks, most black children lived in biological two-parent families.
In New York City, in 1925, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households.
A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were two-parent households."
Black female head of households number is 68 percent

Today...a single black female parent is the ONLY adult in a majority of black young boys lives.
Boys who never had a Dad to give the kid the "TALK"!
Now THE FACTS are I had a "talk" just as MOST Fathers have discussions with their sons regarding RESPECT!!!

The "Talk" like my Dad had with me...i.e. that the teacher, the policeman, the coach, the boss,most people that were my elders... deserve RESPECT!

My Dad told me that if I was ever reprimanded by a teacher, a coach, a policeman, the boss, or an elder, I'd receive an even more severe reprimand from him!
"Yes Sir or Mame" to anyone in authority. That simple.
Comply as quickly as possible to any request with no questions, no whining, no "back talk" as my Dad said to me. My Dad told me that if there was any question -- he sided/agreed with the teacher, a coach, a policeman, the boss, or an elder.


Now if you don't see how this relates to the hatred of cops and this growing ignorance by people like you who don't obviously RESPECT anyone then you
are obviously a typical idiot Hillary supporter!

THINK for once!
Watch what Chris Rock advises any black person who never had fathers to give them the "talk".
Chris Rock - How not to get your ass kicked by the police!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The judge ruled it unconstitutional. The city protested. The protest was sent to a new judge by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The new judge left the first judge's order stand. Meaning it was ruled unconstitutional.

Now, was that so hard?

Have you forgotten who you're talking to?

 

[ColonelAngus]

The judge ruled it unconstitutional. The city protested. The protest was sent to a new judge by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The new judge left the first judge's order stand. Meaning it was ruled unconstitutional.

Now, was that so hard?

Have you forgotten who you're talking to?

You might to look at TERRY VESUS OHIO, you legal geniuses.

Stop and frisk WAS NOT ruled unconstitutional. Please quote the EXACT verbiage in the written opinion of "FLOYD versus NEW YORK CITY" that states the Supreme Court rules S&F "UNCONSTIUTIONAL"?

DeBlasio decided to stop using it, he was not forced by it being deemed "UNCONSTIUTIONAL".

 

[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.

What was Holt wrong on?

. He was wrong for ignoring crime stats that Mayor Juliani had used stop and frisk for, and yep it was to lower crime after the more practical or conventional means to do it wasn't working. 9-11 involved some of the same stuff in which people cried profiling on or about afterwards, and ohhhhhhhh how that was wrong, and ohhhhhh how Gitmo is wrong, and oohhhhh how the Muslim brotherhood was cool, and ohhhhhhhh how Morsi was democratically elected, and ohhh Egypt must now honor their President, and ohhh get those terrorist exchanged for Bergdal quickly, and oohhhhh hurry up and arm them freedom fighters to fight Asad, and oops their the enemy too (some of them), and oops what's with all these terrorist attacks now in America(?), and oops Egypt was right to oust Morsi, and oops stop and frisk did work wonders for the high crime areas in New York, and oops it really worked in order to make them safe again.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Guess what, if the NEXT mayor decides to use STOP AND FRISK, he legally CAN. I guess that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Flush your amateur law degrees, you Atticus Finches.

 

[PurpleOwl]

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

Talk about "UNEDUCATED"!!!
FACT:
By Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
(Who by the way as Obama once said "did I mention, Williams is black"???

The truth is that black female-headed households were just 18 percent of households in 1950, as opposed to about 68 percent today.
In fact, from 1890 to 1940, the black marriage rate was slightly higher than that of whites.
Even during slavery, when marriage was forbidden for blacks, most black children lived in biological two-parent families.
In New York City, in 1925, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households.
A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were two-parent households."
Black female head of households number is 68 percent

Today...a single black female parent is the ONLY adult in a majority of black young boys lives.
Boys who never had a Dad to give the kid the "TALK"!
Now THE FACTS are I had a "talk" just as MOST Fathers have discussions with their sons regarding RESPECT!!!

The "Talk" like my Dad had with me...i.e. that the teacher, the policeman, the coach, the boss,most people that were my elders... deserve RESPECT!

My Dad told me that if I was ever reprimanded by a teacher, a coach, a policeman, the boss, or an elder, I'd receive an even more severe reprimand from him!
"Yes Sir or Mame" to anyone in authority. That simple.
Comply as quickly as possible to any request with no questions, no whining, no "back talk" as my Dad said to me. My Dad told me that if there was any question -- he sided/agreed with the teacher, a coach, a policeman, the boss, or an elder.


Now if you don't see how this relates to the hatred of cops and this growing ignorance by people like you who don't obviously RESPECT anyone then you
are obviously a typical idiot Hillary supporter!

THINK for once!
Watch what Chris Rock advises any black person who never had fathers to give them the "talk".
Chris Rock - How not to get your ass kicked by the police!

so it black people's fault for getting shot by police because they a race dont raise their children right? godamn it takes a real crazy person to take chris jokes seriously and try make a politcal message in favor of racist police tactics from it.

Maybe if their fathers weren't being arrested from the age of 12, didn't grow up in segregated ghettos, and weren't discriminated against at work they wouldn't be as many single mothers for you to scapegoat? which is the only reason why YOU are bringing up single mothers, to use them as a scapegoat

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

So what is your plan....just stop arresting criminals.....if were nice to them, theyll be nice to us, right?

 

[PurpleOwl]

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

So what is your plan....just stop arresting criminals.....if were nice to them, theyll be nice to us, right?

of course not

 

[ColonelAngus]

Wow, so stop and frisk is illegal in every municipality in America?

I had no idea. Thanks for clarifying. Lots of legal experts on this board.

It seems to me that the Supreme Court already ruled 8-1 on "STOP AND FRISK".

Can anyone link to the written Supreme Court opinion that "STOP AND FRISK" was deemed "UNCONSTIUTIONAL" and is illegal to use in the UNITED STATES?

Though police had long followed the practice of stop and frisk, it was not until 1968 that the Supreme Court evaluated it under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Under Fourth Amendment case law, a constitutional Search and Seizure must be based on Probable Cause. A stop and frisk was usually conducted on the basis of reasonable suspicion, a somewhat lower standard than probable cause.

In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in terry v. ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. In Terry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect had no permit. In this case the officer did not have a warrant nor did he have probable cause. He did suspect that the men were "casing" the store and planning a Robbery. The defendants argued the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

Talk about "UNEDUCATED"!!!
FACT:
By Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
(Who by the way as Obama once said "did I mention, Williams is black"???

The truth is that black female-headed households were just 18 percent of households in 1950, as opposed to about 68 percent today.
In fact, from 1890 to 1940, the black marriage rate was slightly higher than that of whites.
Even during slavery, when marriage was forbidden for blacks, most black children lived in biological two-parent families.
In New York City, in 1925, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households.
A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were two-parent households."
Black female head of households number is 68 percent

Today...a single black female parent is the ONLY adult in a majority of black young boys lives.
Boys who never had a Dad to give the kid the "TALK"!
Now THE FACTS are I had a "talk" just as MOST Fathers have discussions with their sons regarding RESPECT!!!

The "Talk" like my Dad had with me...i.e. that the teacher, the policeman, the coach, the boss,most people that were my elders... deserve RESPECT!

My Dad told me that if I was ever reprimanded by a teacher, a coach, a policeman, the boss, or an elder, I'd receive an even more severe reprimand from him!
"Yes Sir or Mame" to anyone in authority. That simple.
Comply as quickly as possible to any request with no questions, no whining, no "back talk" as my Dad said to me. My Dad told me that if there was any question -- he sided/agreed with the teacher, a coach, a policeman, the boss, or an elder.


Now if you don't see how this relates to the hatred of cops and this growing ignorance by people like you who don't obviously RESPECT anyone then you
are obviously a typical idiot Hillary supporter!

THINK for once!
Watch what Chris Rock advises any black person who never had fathers to give them the "talk".
Chris Rock - How not to get your ass kicked by the police!

so it black people's fault for getting shot by police because they a race dont raise their children right? godamn it takes a real crazy person to take chris jokes seriously and try make a politcal message in favor of racist police tactics from it.

Maybe if their fathers weren't being arrested from the age of 12, didn't grow up in segregated ghettos, and weren't discriminated against at work they wouldn't be as many single mothers for you to scapegoat? which is the only reason why YOU are bringing up single mothers, to use them as a scapegoat

Are you retarded?
Who put them in segregared housing and communities?
Who doesnt want them to pick the school to.go.to?
Who babies them with affirmative action, instead of letting them earn a job and taking pride in that?
Who promotes a culture of decadence that kills the family and cause them to have waaay too many single parent households?
Who discourages them from working by giving out tons o welfare?

The answer is NOT Conservatives or republicans