Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Lester as Candy

      This issue of stop and frisk as a tool to fight urban crime came up again last night and Lester Holt weighed in as Trump fact checker saying it's unconstitutional.
     There was some dispute this AM on whether Lester was right. A 1968 SCOTUS case, Terry v Ohio, established that officers can stop and frisk if they have a reasonable suspicion a crime is imminent. The notion became widespread under Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a judge ruled the application (widespread) was unconstitutional but Terry v Ohio was not overturned.
    That case was appealed and the appeal was dropped when Mayor DiBlasio took office.
      There were a couple times Mr. Holt tried to fact check Mr. Trump and I am not sure it was accurate.


Anonymous said...

Holt most definitely was not accurate and Trump was correct.
The highest Court in the land already ruled that "stop and frisk" is legal and constitutional. The lower liberal court judge had no power to say it was not Constitutional. What she did rule is that the specific way NYC was conducting its "stop and frisk" policy, was unconstitutional because the result disproportionately resulted minorities being stopped and frisked more often than whites.

So even if her liberal idiotic ruling is allowed to stand, it is still not a ruling agaisnt stop and frisk "per say" "as it were".

But all indications are that even the small set back that one specific type of "stop and frisk" suffered from her incompetent ruling, would not stand if allowed to run through the court.


Of course, the truth is that crime happens at night and that is when the people who are being stopped and frisked are out, so they naturally will get caught up in in more. Just as you and I will get pulled over much more often if we drive at 2:00am.

Anonymous said...

Thats the trouble with debates with a moderator.The moderator was biased without any questionable doubt. Lester Holt was inaccurate on his fact checking.. Stop and frisk is not unconstitutional as he stated. Used as it was in NYC it was ruled unconstitutional from a Hillary judge.. Every time someone such as Trump comes up with something a little tough, everyone yells foul but have no solution themselves.. The war thing goes on and on but when you make a state ment on a show about stating you support it then change your mind latter and some thinking has taken place you original statement is the only one thats remembered(how convenient).. Trump without a doubt made it very clear from that point on he was not a supporter of the war and no one can change that.. He told them what would happen and it did. It destableized the region and now we have complete chaos over their.

Anonymous said...

It boils down to one question: how does the left attract the most votes in the inner cities? By making the area's safe, or by claiming that safety is unobtainable because of technicalities ? Obviously they choose number 2, as to choose number 1 would risk having literally millions of currently desperate people, actually working and enjoying their lives, who would no longer need the nipple.

Danny M. Francis (Eyepublius) said...

Two pals walking home late at night after a time on the town: one white, one black.

Cop car pulls up and tells them don't move, he gets out, who do you think will be frisked? W? B? or Both? And, why? Suspected of a crime, looks like criminals, may be heading to a crime, just left a crime?

Probable cause about one or two men, both white, both black, or one of each is a tough call. The idea behind reasonable or probably cause is cops have a valid reason to "stop and frisk."

So, after nothing is found or wrong, will a "I'm sorry guys, go ahead move along." Will that suffice?

Imagine it were you. Oops...

Danny M. Francis (Eyepublius) said...

You kinda skipped over a couple of key points of Terry v. Ohio:

TRUE: If the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." Yes, stop and frisk.

BUT: For their own protection, after a person has been stopped, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch.

IMPACT: The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations."

The meaning of that rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

Just to be clear, okay?

Middle-Class Mike said...

Yesterday early afternoon before the debate I tweeted these gems:

Mike Flynn ‏@MiddleClassMike · 22h22 hours ago

@KellyannePolls @realDonaldTrump Rumor Mill at NBC: saying @LesterHoltNBC must get TRUMP or else; NBC totally vested in stopping TRUMP! MCM

Mike Flynn ‏@MiddleClassMike · 18h18 hours ago

@NBCNews @LesterHoltNBC @realDonaldTrump Biggest Tell (Bias) of Night to Watch for, is how many times Holt interrupts Trump vs. HRC! MCM

Mike Flynn ‏@MiddleClassMike · 22h22 hours ago

@mitchellreports @MSNBC Behind the scenes insiders say @LesterHoltNBC has been warned by NBC EXECS: Get TRUMP & make it look good or else!


Anonymous said...

mr. francis, my father and grandfather served..front lines. i never did so i don't pretend to know what it is like...or profess my expertise on it. you have never been a police officer and have no training whatsoever nor any real life experience to talk about my profession. u sir are part of the problem. too many sideline coaches and not enough players.

Anonymous said...

Dannie sure is leaving a puddle on this one. Dan, relax, even if Trump wins all your freestuff is safe. You still won't have to pay taxes on your house. The PX with all its subsidized products will be available to you. Your free healthcare will remain so forever. You will be the last to feel any budget cuts, as if there will ever be any. No, the only group that gets really screwed is the kids. And we all know their future is the last thing on your mind.

Anonymous said...

Holt was just repeating what has become accepted by the liberal media. The decision he referred to was a District Court decision in acidic case where the judge found that tye NYPD practice of "stop and frisk" was violating civil rights. Two points were overlooked. 1- As it was made by a trial court, ithe decision is not binding outside of her (NYC) jurisdiction, and most legal experts were confident it would be reversed -until the ultra-liberal newly elected DeBlasio dropped the appeal. 2- The opinion did not declare Stop and Frisk unconstitutional, it declared the NYPD practice was to stop and frisk without any reason - which was never allowed. Terry v. Ohio remains the law of the land, and Stop and Frisk is allowed if based on reasonable suspicion - which was what the established policy of NYPD all along. At a minimum, NBC should clarify the misstatement.....