Donald Trump will propose the expansion of the controversial stop-and-frisk policing program in a town hall aimed at African-American voters Wednesday.


In the event that will air Wednesday night on Fox News's "Hannity," Trump was asked by an audience member how he would address violence in black communities, according to a transcript.
“Well one of the things I’d do, Ricardo, is I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to,” Trump responded.

Trump said policies have to be "proactive" and that stop-and-frisk worked "incredibly well" in New York City.

“Now, we had a very good mayor, but New York City was incredible, the way that worked, so I think that could be one step you could do,” Trump said.

Link


I thought this was unconstitutional?

I like.

I'm for that.

(09-21-2016 04:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Donald Trump will propose the expansion of the controversial stop-and-frisk policing program in a town hall aimed at African-American voters Wednesday.


In the event that will air Wednesday night on Fox News's "Hannity," Trump was asked by an audience member how he would address violence in black communities, according to a transcript.
“Well one of the things I’d do, Ricardo, is I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to,” Trump responded.

Trump said policies have to be "proactive" and that stop-and-frisk worked "incredibly well" in New York City.

“Now, we had a very good mayor, but New York City was incredible, the way that worked, so I think that could be one step you could do,” Trump said.

Link


I thought this was unconstitutional?

Found your problem.

(09-21-2016 04:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Donald Trump will propose the expansion of the controversial stop-and-frisk policing program in a town hall aimed at African-American voters Wednesday.


In the event that will air Wednesday night on Fox News's "Hannity," Trump was asked by an audience member how he would address violence in black communities, according to a transcript.
“Well one of the things I’d do, Ricardo, is I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to,” Trump responded.

Trump said policies have to be "proactive" and that stop-and-frisk worked "incredibly well" in New York City.

“Now, we had a very good mayor, but New York City was incredible, the way that worked, so I think that could be one step you could do,” Trump said.

Link


I thought this was unconstitutional?

Found your problem.

LOL

Worked for NYC.

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

As we all should, especially those in the ghetto-ized warzones that are many of our inner city's.

Why? It works.

It worked

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Awesome ! You can even use a metal detector without touching The person.

More freedoms slipping away. I thought the TGOP was for less govt regulations, yet here we go again.

(09-22-2016 07:08 AM)Greenroom Wrote:  More freedoms slipping away. I thought the TGOP was for less govt regulations, yet here we go again.

Maintaining law and order is one of very few legitimate gov't functions.

Stop and Frisk was deemed unconstitutional.

Second of all, it doesn't even work.

(09-22-2016 09:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Stop and Frisk was deemed unconstitutional.

Second of all, it doesn't even work.

I love how the cons on here laughed at you for providing factually correct statements and said "thinking is your problem"

(09-21-2016 04:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Donald Trump will propose the expansion of the controversial stop-and-frisk policing program in a town hall aimed at African-American voters Wednesday.


In the event that will air Wednesday night on Fox News's "Hannity," Trump was asked by an audience member how he would address violence in black communities, according to a transcript.
“Well one of the things I’d do, Ricardo, is I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to,” Trump responded.

Trump said policies have to be "proactive" and that stop-and-frisk worked "incredibly well" in New York City.

“Now, we had a very good mayor, but New York City was incredible, the way that worked, so I think that could be one step you could do,” Trump said.

Link


I thought this was unconstitutional?

Found your problem.

doh!

(09-22-2016 09:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 09:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Stop and Frisk was deemed unconstitutional.

Second of all, it doesn't even work.

I love how the cons on here laughed at you for providing factually correct statements and said "thinking is your problem"

I know. It just goes to show what we are up against. It's hard to have an honest debate when they won't even acknowledge basic facts.

(09-22-2016 09:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Stop and Frisk was deemed unconstitutional.

Second of all, it doesn't even work.

Wrong and wrong.

A judge said it was unconstitutional, a federal appellate court blocked the judge until the appeal could be heard, thereby making stop and frisk constitutional. The appeal has never occurred because of de Blasio. Once that Ebola brained monkey gets tossed, it will be backin force.

To say it doesn't even work is like saying a laxative didnt work while your ass is levetating 2 feet above the toilet due to the thrust of your colon blow.

I'm trying to get past the (once again) twisted logic of the OP

In order to address violence in black communities, Trump suggests 'stop and frisk'.

If a white or mixed community had similar violence problems, the same thing would apply.

How is this any different than metal detectors and random screening at airports or other sensitive areas? It's somewhat a version of martial law, which certainly is constitutional in extraordinary circumstances. We can debate whether these circumstances are extraordinary or not, but many leftists think they're extraordinary enough to warrant eliminating second amendment rights... and 'stop and frisk' is only a very minor part of martial law.

The suggestion is because of the inordinately high crime, not the race of the people who live there. I understand that doesn't fit the election year narrative, but once you move past that, it should make sense. Not saying you have to agree... just saying that it's no more outlandish than suggesting that we take gun rights away from 300mm people to stop 10-20,000 crimes.

(09-22-2016 10:08 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 09:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 09:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Stop and Frisk was deemed unconstitutional.

Second of all, it doesn't even work.

I love how the cons on here laughed at you for providing factually correct statements and said "thinking is your problem"

I know. It just goes to show what we are up against. It's hard to have an honest debate when they won't even acknowledge basic facts.

Do you ever tire of being wrong? Or do you just love to to tell lies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-f..._York_City

(09-22-2016 11:14 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm trying to get past the (once again) twisted logic of the OP

In order to address violence in black communities, Trump suggests 'stop and frisk'.

If a white or mixed community had similar violence problems, the same thing would apply.

How is this any different than metal detectors and random screening at airports or other sensitive areas? It's somewhat a version of martial law, which certainly is constitutional in extraordinary circumstances. We can debate whether these circumstances are extraordinary or not, but many leftists think they're extraordinary enough to warrant eliminating second amendment rights... and 'stop and frisk' is only a very minor part of martial law.

The suggestion is because of the inordinately high crime, not the race of the people who live there. I understand that doesn't fit the election year narrative, but once you move past that, it should make sense. Not saying you have to agree... just saying that it's no more outlandish than suggesting that we take gun rights away from 300mm people to stop 10-20,000 crimes.

The difference is that at airports or places where they have metal detectors, you can choose not to go or simply turn around and leave.

Stop and frisk means that for whatever reason, a cop can stop you and you do not have the option to leave or not go in those areas because it could happen anywhere.

This is why we were taught as kids to run whenever we saw the cops even if we were not doing anything wrong. Because if we go caught, we were stopped and asked to empty our pockets.

(09-22-2016 11:22 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is why we were taught as kids to run whenever we saw the cops even if we were not doing anything wrong. Because if we go caught, we were stopped and asked to empty our pockets.

Whoever taught you that was a moron. No wonder "your communities" are so ****** up. Running from the police in and of itself would be considered a suspicious activity and creates a legitimate reason to stop you.