Trump: I’d Use ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ to End Violence in Black Communities - Polidicks

[quote]During a pre-taped “core black issues” town-hall interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump revealed Wednesday that he would like to see “stop-and-frisk” policing enacted nationwide as a way to end violence in black communities. “I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to,” he reportedly said in response to an audience member’s question about stopping “black-on-black” crime. “We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well, and you have to be proactive and, you know, you really help people sort of change their mind automatically.” Despite studies showing the practice wasn’t all that effective in making cities safer, and widespread criticism of its race-based tactics, Trump continued to extol stop-and-frisk’s virtues: “In New York City, it was so incredible, the way it worked.”[/quote] Oh boy oh boy! Yes Trump, let's use a police tactic that was found unconstitutional in the VERY STATE that you claim it worked so well in. You sure do have an understanding of the history in black/minority communities. I wrote a paper on this topic and found the exact opposite results in every single article I read. SOURCE: [url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/09/21/trump-i-d-use-stop-and-frisk-to-end-violence-in-black-communities.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl[/url]

With how tensions are currently regarding police, stop-and-frisk won't make matters any easier.

I just heard about this practice now and after a really short research on it, I couldn't really find a side to rest on. From what I gather, with "stop-and-frisk" Police can question and search you for illegal weapons/contraband without consent or warrant. Other than the obvious privacy issues, what's the problem with this practice? Racial bias? I honestly don't see much potential for abuse. [editline]22nd September 2016[/editline] I'm not trying to stir any shit, just want to hear some opinions on this

[QUOTE=Rocko's;51086605]With how tensions are currently regarding police, stop-and-frisk won't make matters any easier.[/QUOTE] Trump said before he doesn't intend on making it easier, he wants a very tough on crime policy, he wants to use force to try and get his desired results.

[QUOTE=ZpankR;51086629]Other than the obvious privacy issues, what's the problem with this practice? Racial bias? I honestly don't see much potential for abuse. [editline]22nd September 2016[/editline] I'm not trying to stir any shit, just want to hear some opinions on this[/QUOTE] if you consistently 'stop and frisk' a certain group, you're just going to build up a bias against said certain group and said certain group will do the same for you. like sure, maybe you might help lower black-on-black crime a little bit, but you're just building up another problem, and the more and more that mutual disrespect grows, the more and more members of the group with authority will abuse said authority. this is the exact reason we're seeing such high tension between black people and the police. that's besides the fact that it's unconstitutional as fuck

[QUOTE=ZpankR;51086629]I just heard about this practice now and after a really short research on it, I couldn't really find a side to rest on. From what I gather, with "stop-and-frisk" Police can question and search you for illegal weapons/contraband without consent or warrant. Other than the obvious privacy issues, what's the problem with this practice? Racial bias? I honestly don't see much potential for abuse. [editline]22nd September 2016[/editline] I'm not trying to stir any shit, just want to hear some opinions on this[/QUOTE] It's very open to abuse. I don't see how you could come to the conclusion it's not open to abuse to be totally honest.

[QUOTE=ZpankR;51086629]I just heard about this practice now and after a really short research on it, I couldn't really find a side to rest on. From what I gather, with "stop-and-frisk" Police can question and search you for illegal weapons/contraband without consent or warrant. Other than the obvious privacy issues, what's the problem with this practice? Racial bias? I honestly don't see much potential for abuse. [editline]22nd September 2016[/editline] I'm not trying to stir any shit, just want to hear some opinions on this[/QUOTE] The major targets of stop and frisk in New York were blacks and latinos. The purpose of it was said to be a tool for police to find illegal guns and get them off the streets. However, a vast majority of the searches came up empty on the gun thing and excessive use of force was also commonplace

Since he's talking about black crime I'm assuming he's saying police should only do this to black people. And if they do it to black people only isn't that promoting racial profiling?

This is going to result in more people getting killed.

[QUOTE=Jimmyjohn;51086661] And if they do it to black people only isn't that promoting racial profiling?[/QUOTE] yeah, he's pretty openly stating that

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51086648]Trump said before he doesn't intend on making it easier, he wants a very tough on crime policy, he wants to use force to try and get his desired results.[/QUOTE] Gonna have to say, that is a little worrying. I know that there should be something done about crime, but it's difficult to work around due to tensions between the community and its police. Stop-and-Frisk was stopped in NYC, wanting to push it beyond NYC won't help with the current tensions. I'm not a crime expert, so I can't really suggest alternatives. But I know for sure stop-and-frisk shouldn't be one of our solutions to curbing crime. [QUOTE=ZpankR;51086629]I just heard about this practice now and after a really short research on it, I couldn't really find a side to rest on. From what I gather, with "stop-and-frisk" Police can question and search you for illegal weapons/contraband without consent or warrant. Other than the obvious privacy issues, what's the problem with this practice? Racial bias? I honestly don't see much potential for abuse. [editline]22nd September 2016[/editline] I'm not trying to stir any shit, just want to hear some opinions on this[/QUOTE] In my opinion, with how I see it, it's simply that people don't want to be randomly searched. If a cop walks up and immediately goes to stop-and-frisk, it's a sure fire way to start an argument between a civilian and a cop. The major outcome I can see coming out of this is more people being against police, and more assaults on officers.

[QUOTE=Cructo;51086668]As opposed to letting crime grow rampant?[/QUOTE] I'm not just talking about any potential criminals. This will get a lot of both innocent people and police officers killed.

[quote]I just heard about this practice now and after a really short research on it, I couldn't really find a side to rest on. From what I gather, with "stop-and-frisk" Police can question and search you for illegal weapons/contraband without consent or warrant. Other than the obvious privacy issues, what's the problem with this practice? Racial bias? I honestly don't see much potential for abuse. [SIZE=1][COLOR=#444444][B]Edited:[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE] I'm not trying to stir any shit, just want to hear some opinions on this[/quote] I mean, it does sort of work in the short term from what I remember, at least from some of the journals I read, but you have to commit continuous manpower and resources to small areas, and considering how strapped for cash many police departments are, it might just not be that feasible. Additionally, considering the tensions between black people and the police in general in the US, this won't help things one bit unless you get cops who really want to work with the community. Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if most cops wouldn't want to draw stop and frisk duty, and if they get it, they'll be on edge the entire time. More then likely we'll hear of an increase in cop related shootings, both with cop and non-police victims. Intrinsically there's a racial bias in Trump's version of it since he's targeting black communities only. It also doesn't really stop domestic violence and non-street violence directly, which is I think the major cause of homicide in general in the US. You could argue having more cops patrolling the streets in crime ridden areas will increase the chances of stopping domestic violence, but unless the beat cops are working in pairs, I doubt many would really want to approach those situations without backup, and that takes time anyways.

[QUOTE=Cructo;51086668]As opposed to letting crime grow rampant?[/QUOTE] This won't stop crime. This will increase incidences of crime as certain populations feel increasingly acted against.

[QUOTE=Cructo;51086668]As opposed to letting crime grow rampant?[/QUOTE] stop and search never reduced crime, it only greatly hurt police standing in the communities

[QUOTE=Cructo;51086677]Innocents and cops already die a lot on criminal's hands though[/QUOTE] And now by doing this it's not helping to curb that trend. It will likely create outrage in the communities that are dis proportionally targeted by these policies.

[QUOTE=Cructo;51086677]Innocents and cops already die a lot on criminal's hands though[/QUOTE] So what you want to do is introduce a measure where more police officers and innocent people are killed. As far as I'm aware the objective of law enforcement is to REDUCE casualties, not increase them.

Black people (in NYC, when the police were using stop and frisk) were actually UNDERrepresented as a proportion of people who commit crimes/people stopped and frisked. [editline]21st September 2016[/editline] And when they stopped using the system, crime spiked there.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51086694]Black people (in NYC, when the police were using stop and frisk) were actually UNDERrepresented as a proportion of people who commit crimes/people stopped and frisked. [editline]21st September 2016[/editline] And when they stopped using the system, crime spiked there.[/QUOTE] I'm thinking the current political climate will make this a different beast if it happens, especially under Trump.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51086705]I'm thinking the current political climate will make this a different beast if it happens, especially under Trump.[/QUOTE] That's not at all a substantiated claim but I guess you're certainly correct in noticing that it's narrative > actual logic and real data.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51086714]That's not at all a substantiated claim but I guess you're certainly correct in noticing that it's narrative > actual logic and real data.[/QUOTE] Did I say it was a substantial claim? No I said it's my thought, but no, you can make this about something it's not. Pointing out precedents is great but it isn't a way to predict the future, especially when the atmosphere changes.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51086694]Black people (in NYC, when the police were using stop and frisk) were actually UNDERrepresented as a proportion of people who commit crimes/people stopped and frisked. [editline]21st September 2016[/editline] And when they stopped using the system, crime spiked there.[/QUOTE] I'd like to see what studies you have to back up this claim. Particularly ones that show a causal relationship and not just a corollary one.

[QUOTE=Zyler;51086734]I'd like to see what studies you have to back up this claim. Particularly ones that show a causal relationship and not just a corollary one.[/QUOTE] The NYPD data on arrests and reported crimes.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51086749]The NYPD data on arrests and reported crimes.[/QUOTE] Why don't you post that data so you can actually prove your point.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51086749]The NYPD data on arrests and reported crimes.[/QUOTE] Does it say what you're saying it says or does it say something different you've paraphrased for your own narrative?

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51086766]Why don't you post that data so you can actually prove your point.[/QUOTE] On my phone now so the formatting of the charts for me is all fucked up, but the crime information is on [url=http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/crime_prevention/crime_statistics.shtml]this page[/url]. I'll try to lay it all out when I get back to my pc.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51086694]Black people (in NYC, when the police were using stop and frisk) were actually UNDERrepresented as a proportion of people who commit crimes/people stopped and frisked. [editline]21st September 2016[/editline] And when they stopped using the system, crime spiked there.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/19/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-is-all-but-gone-from-new-york.html"]NY Times article[/URL] showing that the were over-represented and [URL="http://www.wsj.com/articles/nyc-officials-tout-new-low-in-crime-but-homicide-rape-robbery-rose-1451959203"]Wall Street Journal article[/URL] noting an overall decrease in crime in 2014 and 2015, 2014 being the year that the city began denouncing the practice. Correlation doesn't equal causation but we can say at hte very least that crime did not spike overall in the NYC area.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51086796]On my phone now so the formatting of the charts for me is all fucked up, but the crime information is on [url=http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/crime_prevention/crime_statistics.shtml]this page[/url]. I'll try to lay it all out when I get back to my pc.[/QUOTE] So there's no causal link between the use of 'stop and frisk' policies and the amount of crime? There could be any number of factors involved in the fluctuation of crime statistics ranging from economic, socioeconomic, political, social, et al. Not saying you are doing this, but if you are, don't draw conclusions from statistics based on your own idea of what's happening, it won't be convincing evidence. Instead, only draw the information from the numbers that are clearly represented by the numbers, i.e. changes in the amount of crime, not what caused it. Otherwise, anybody could claim any cause, like "the increasing crime is due to the rise of white nationalism" or something like that, and they would be equally correct as you are.

[QUOTE=ZpankR;51086629]I just heard about this practice now and after a really short research on it, I couldn't really find a side to rest on. From what I gather, with "stop-and-frisk" Police can question and search you for illegal weapons/contraband without consent or warrant. Other than the obvious privacy issues, what's the problem with this practice? Racial bias? I honestly don't see much potential for abuse. [editline]22nd September 2016[/editline] I'm not trying to stir any shit, just want to hear some opinions on this[/QUOTE] It's in blatant violation of constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and it is almost unfailingly racist in practice, causing massive amounts of racial profiling through unlawful stops and searches. [editline]21st September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Cructo;51086668]As opposed to letting crime grow rampant?[/QUOTE] "Grow rampant." [t]http://www.statista.com/graphic/1/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990.jpg[/t] Crime rates are steadily dropping every year. Crime is hardly "rampant," and it's certainly not growing. That is part of the false "feelings over facts" narrative pushed by GOP strategists in order to scare people into voting red.

I really want to see him justify this statement during the first debate on next monday. It will be hilarious.