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

[PurpleOwl]

stop and frisk diidnt save lives it was highly innefective and a waste of time and money on top of being a violation of rights

if you think black people shouldn't have the same rights as you, than your a racist thats the defintion of the word racist

. Trust me if white people were terrorizing their communities, killing their fellow citizens, robbing and abusing their fellow citizens, the stop and frisk would be also be an option if need be in that situation the very same. In fact during the 30's & 40's the gangsters found it out, and the Mafia did as well etc. etc.

Im not a racist so i see black and white communities as "american communities"

The Mafiosi used to keep their neighborhoods safe, or the criminals that violated their neighborhoods regretted it. Maybe they still do. Lots of white criminals have a saying. "Don't s__t in your own backyard, and they will enforce it, too.

yeah but when mafia said Don't s__t in your own backyard they meant shit black peoples yards because the cops wont stop you, are black people supposed to go white neighorhoods to commit crimes?

From what I know, white criminals don't go down to the black section to do crime. For one it's too dangerous. For another, poor black folk don't have much money to steal.

where do you think all the cocaine and heroin comes from? you ever see a poppy feild in nyc?

 

[beagle9]

so you would have no problem if police stopped and frisked you everyday?

If I were living in a crime ridden area, and stop and frisk saved lives, yes I wouldn't mind it since it would make my neighborhood safer in the long run. Better frisked than dead should be the motto.

stop and frisk diidnt save lives it was highly innefective and a waste of time and money on top of being a violation of rights

if you think black people shouldn't have the same rights as you, than your a racist thats the defintion of the word racist

. Trust me if white people were terrorizing their communities, killing their fellow citizens, robbing and abusing their fellow citizens, the stop and frisk would be also be an option if need be in that situation the very same. In fact during the 30's & 40's the gangsters found it out, and the Mafia did as well etc. etc.

Im not a racist so i see black and white communities as "american communities"

The Mafiosi used to keep their neighborhoods safe, or the criminals that violated their neighborhoods regretted it. Maybe they still do. Lots of white criminals have a saying. "Don't s__t in your own backyard, and they will enforce it, too.

. Remember these guy's ???

 

[jasonnfree]

. Trust me if white people were terrorizing their communities, killing their fellow citizens, robbing and abusing their fellow citizens, the stop and frisk would be also be an option if need be in that situation the very same. In fact during the 30's & 40's the gangsters found it out, and the Mafia did as well etc. etc.

Im not a racist so i see black and white communities as "american communities"

The Mafiosi used to keep their neighborhoods safe, or the criminals that violated their neighborhoods regretted it. Maybe they still do. Lots of white criminals have a saying. "Don't s__t in your own backyard, and they will enforce it, too.

yeah but when mafia said Don't s__t in your own backyard they meant shit black peoples yards because the cops wont stop you, are black people supposed to go white neighorhoods to commit crimes?

From what I know, white criminals don't go down to the black section to do crime. For one it's too dangerous. For another, poor black folk don't have much money to steal.

where do you think all the cocaine and heroin comes from? you ever see a poppy feild in nyc?

It comes from south america and asia I believe. Nevertheless, it ends up in the ghettos. Sad. What's your solution? The democrat solution is to bring more people here from all over the world to increase the poverty and crime, which is why I'm not a democrat anymore and I believe only someone like Trump can help this country.

 

[beagle9]

. Trust me if white people were terrorizing their communities, killing their fellow citizens, robbing and abusing their fellow citizens, the stop and frisk would be also be an option if need be in that situation the very same. In fact during the 30's & 40's the gangsters found it out, and the Mafia did as well etc. etc.

Im not a racist so i see black and white communities as "american communities"

The Mafiosi used to keep their neighborhoods safe, or the criminals that violated their neighborhoods regretted it. Maybe they still do. Lots of white criminals have a saying. "Don't s__t in your own backyard, and they will enforce it, too.

yeah but when mafia said Don't s__t in your own backyard they meant shit black peoples yards because the cops wont stop you, are black people supposed to go white neighorhoods to commit crimes?

From what I know, white criminals don't go down to the black section to do crime. For one it's too dangerous. For another, poor black folk don't have much money to steal.

where do you think all the cocaine and heroin comes from? you ever see a poppy feild in nyc?

. So now it's a situation where there is no self control to JUST SAY NO ? Whose pushing the drugs in the hood ?? White guys ?? I got the same opportunity in my hood, but I JUST SAY NO, but it is here, but it's not as prevalent or pervasive a problem yet, but it's moving like wild fire among the youth everywhere now.

 

[beagle9]

I get stopped and frisked whenever I fly on an airliner. I'm told it increases safety and saves lives. Stop and frisk saved lives in new york city, so what's the big deal?

so you would have no problem if police stopped and frisked you everyday?

. Not everyday, but until the situation is under control. Out of control means do what is nessesary to stop crime in high crime cities or areas. Anyone having a problem with it, then start a missionary in the inner city where it is bad, and start bringing people to the Lord, and help to stop the violence.

what situation murder rates are down across all major cities? just because you precious flowers are hearing about it for the first time doesn't mean its getting worse

. Precious flowers eh ? Yeah I guess where not hardened by the constant fear of living in the inner cities where thugs and gangs kill and threaten their own on a daily basis, and even kill on a daily basis, so thanks for reminding us how we are unscaved by such a thing thus far. Still young flowers all bright with life, peace and love we are eh, but mean while it is from your point of view when it comes to the inner cities or hood, that your a wilted, lifeless hardened human being who can't stand the fact that people have put themselves in a situation that cause the stop and frisk program to have been enacted or considered.

have you ever been to the inner city or like most republicans are you too afraid to even step foot in one? I bet you call the cops whenever you see a black person in your town

Should I call the cops, you tell me since your the authority on it ? I got plenty of black friends and co-workers, so trust me it ain't what you wish it was with me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Holt was right. It was ruled unconstitutional.

The program doesn't work.

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?

LOL

It dumbfounds me the colossal liberal ignorance of the law.

Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)

"A police officer witnessed three men pacing in front of a jewelry store and suspected that a robbery was being planned. He approached the men and identified himself, then performed frisks of defendants Richard Chilton and John Terry and discovered illegal concealed weapons. Defendants were convicted and appealed, claiming that the frisk violated their Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches and seizures.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that when a law enforcement officer has “reasonable grounds” for suspecting that a criminal suspect may be armed, he may pat down the outer layer of the suspect’s clothing for weapons. The ruling held that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a pat-down is performed based on reasonable suspicion for the purpose of ensuring officer safety."

Utah v. Strieff 579 U.S. ___ (2016)

Essentially upheld Terry v. Ohio.

No major ruling by the Supreme Court exists which has determined that "stop and frisk" was unconstitutional. The judge in the case cited by the OP was removed after she violated the code of conduct for a judge in her position. The ruling did not rule all types of stop and frisk unconstitutional, as the judge herself said she was not outlawing stop and frisk as a practice. The ruling itself was made based on the particular way NYC police were conducting stop and frisk in 2008.

Holt was right that stop and frisk as it was in the city of New York as was conducted by the police there was ruled unconstitutional. The Floyd case, however, had only persuasive authority, not mandatory authority, and did not rule that all stop and frisk everywhere was unconstitutional. I love how liberals have tried to spin this.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Holt was right. It was ruled unconstitutional.

The program doesn't work.

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?

LOL

It dumbfounds me the colossal liberal ignorance of the law.

Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)

"A police officer witnessed three men pacing in front of a jewelry store and suspected that a robbery was being planned. He approached the men and identified himself, then performed frisks of defendants Richard Chilton and John Terry and discovered illegal concealed weapons. Defendants were convicted and appealed, claiming that the frisk violated their Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches and seizures.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that when a law enforcement officer has “reasonable grounds” for suspecting that a criminal suspect may be armed, he may pat down the outer layer of the suspect’s clothing for weapons. The ruling held that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a pat-down is performed based on reasonable suspicion for the purpose of ensuring officer safety."

Utah v. Strieff 579 U.S. ___ (2016)

Essentially upheld Terry v. Ohio.

You aren't impressing anyone, tubby.

 

[jasonnfree]

so you would have no problem if police stopped and frisked you everyday?

. Not everyday, but until the situation is under control. Out of control means do what is nessesary to stop crime in high crime cities or areas. Anyone having a problem with it, then start a missionary in the inner city where it is bad, and start bringing people to the Lord, and help to stop the violence.

what situation murder rates are down across all major cities? just because you precious flowers are hearing about it for the first time doesn't mean its getting worse

. Precious flowers eh ? Yeah I guess where not hardened by the constant fear of living in the inner cities where thugs and gangs kill and threaten their own on a daily basis, and even kill on a daily basis, so thanks for reminding us how we are unscaved by such a thing thus far. Still young flowers all bright with life, peace and love we are eh, but mean while it is from your point of view when it comes to the inner cities or hood, that your a wilted, lifeless hardened human being who can't stand the fact that people have put themselves in a situation that cause the stop and frisk program to have been enacted or considered.

have you ever been to the inner city or like most republicans are you too afraid to even step foot in one? I bet you call the cops whenever you see a black person in your town

Should I call the cops, you tell me since your the authority on it ? I got plenty of black friends and co-workers, so trust me it ain't what you wish it was with me.

I felt inspiration seeing Trump in that Black church in Cleveland heights last week. That was one of my old neighborhoods in the 1950's. He's really connecting with religious people from all over, all colors, which is great. Many former democrats too. This is maybe what America needs, since most everything else has failed. I hope he has enough time before the election to convince black and white folk that the clinton plan is more debt, crime, failed schools, offshoring of jobs, and total bankruptcy for all except the chosen few, like the clintons.

 

[beagle9]

Lester Holt and Hillary tried to set Trump up with all their race baiting bull crap, but it didn't work.

 

[BluesLegend]

Will Lester Holt hold a press conference, admit his mistake and apologize?

 

[beagle9]

. Not everyday, but until the situation is under control. Out of control means do what is nessesary to stop crime in high crime cities or areas. Anyone having a problem with it, then start a missionary in the inner city where it is bad, and start bringing people to the Lord, and help to stop the violence.

what situation murder rates are down across all major cities? just because you precious flowers are hearing about it for the first time doesn't mean its getting worse

. Precious flowers eh ? Yeah I guess where not hardened by the constant fear of living in the inner cities where thugs and gangs kill and threaten their own on a daily basis, and even kill on a daily basis, so thanks for reminding us how we are unscaved by such a thing thus far. Still young flowers all bright with life, peace and love we are eh, but mean while it is from your point of view when it comes to the inner cities or hood, that your a wilted, lifeless hardened human being who can't stand the fact that people have put themselves in a situation that cause the stop and frisk program to have been enacted or considered.

have you ever been to the inner city or like most republicans are you too afraid to even step foot in one? I bet you call the cops whenever you see a black person in your town

Should I call the cops, you tell me since your the authority on it ? I got plenty of black friends and co-workers, so trust me it ain't what you wish it was with me.

I felt inspiration seeing Trump in that Black church in Cleveland heights last week. That was one of my old neighborhoods in the 1950's. He's really connecting with religious people from all over, all colors, which is great. Many former democrats too. This is maybe what America needs, since most everything else has failed. I hope he has enough time before the election to convince black and white folk that the clinton plan is more debt, crime, failed schools, offshoring of jobs, and total bankruptcy for all except the chosen few, like the clintons.

. And if Trump is not the President we wanted, then I will join up with those who are disappointed in order to defeat him after 4 years.

 

[Indeependent]

Holt was right. It was ruled unconstitutional.

The program doesn't work.

I just met with my Liberal Estate Attorney and he said it's NOT Unconstitutional.
He's not voting for either of them.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Holt was right. It was ruled unconstitutional.

The program doesn't work.

I just met with my Liberal Estate Attorney and he said it's NOT Unconstitutional.
He's not voting for either of them.

Cool story, bro.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Holt was right. It was ruled unconstitutional.

The program doesn't work.

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?

LOL

It dumbfounds me the colossal liberal ignorance of the law.

Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)

"A police officer witnessed three men pacing in front of a jewelry store and suspected that a robbery was being planned. He approached the men and identified himself, then performed frisks of defendants Richard Chilton and John Terry and discovered illegal concealed weapons. Defendants were convicted and appealed, claiming that the frisk violated their Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches and seizures.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that when a law enforcement officer has “reasonable grounds” for suspecting that a criminal suspect may be armed, he may pat down the outer layer of the suspect’s clothing for weapons. The ruling held that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a pat-down is performed based on reasonable suspicion for the purpose of ensuring officer safety."

Utah v. Strieff 579 U.S. ___ (2016)

Essentially upheld Terry v. Ohio.

You aren't impressing anyone, tubby.

I'm not trying to impress anyone. I'm educating ill advised people like you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Holt was right. It was ruled unconstitutional.

The program doesn't work.

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?

LOL

It dumbfounds me the colossal liberal ignorance of the law.

Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)

"A police officer witnessed three men pacing in front of a jewelry store and suspected that a robbery was being planned. He approached the men and identified himself, then performed frisks of defendants Richard Chilton and John Terry and discovered illegal concealed weapons. Defendants were convicted and appealed, claiming that the frisk violated their Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches and seizures.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that when a law enforcement officer has “reasonable grounds” for suspecting that a criminal suspect may be armed, he may pat down the outer layer of the suspect’s clothing for weapons. The ruling held that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a pat-down is performed based on reasonable suspicion for the purpose of ensuring officer safety."

Utah v. Strieff 579 U.S. ___ (2016)

Essentially upheld Terry v. Ohio.

You aren't impressing anyone, tubby.

You can't even counter me. All you have is "tubby".

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let LL and Dean serve as examples of how the far left lies consistently and retaliates to factual rebuttals with namecalling.

 

[Indeependent]

Holt was right. It was ruled unconstitutional.

The program doesn't work.

I just met with my Liberal Estate Attorney and he said it's NOT Unconstitutional.
He's not voting for either of them.

Cool story, bro.

Yep...Actual Attorney...Imagine.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let LL and Dean serve as examples of how the far left lies consistently and retaliates to factual rebuttals with namecalling.

What did Holt say that wasn't true?

 

[MaryL]

Not the infamous Less ( "yet another outrage") Holt? The same guy that pushed outrage against white cops and enabled anti white cop rioters? Ok, same guy. I wouldn't want Lester Holt officiating over a soap car derby, let alone a major political debate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let LL and Dean serve as examples of how the far left lies consistently and retaliates to factual rebuttals with namecalling.

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.