Chicago mayor's spokesman: Trump 'clueless,' wrong on stop-and-frisk

In order for a Terry stop to be constitutional, the police need "specific and articulable facts" that the person being detained is about to, or has committed a crime. The color of the detainees skin or their accent are not reasonable and articulable facts to support the detention.

Emanuel spokesman Matt McGrath says "even someone as clueless" as Trump has to realize the solution to crime isn't as simple as stop-and-frisk. McGrath also notes that Chicago's homicide rate is falling.

What would Rahm Emanuel know about reducing crime? He's been the mayor since 2012 and hasn't reduced crime. He will soon be replaced by Bill Daley, the brother and son of former Chicago Mayors.

Imagine how much Trump would like the idea if he were the one who was going to be stopped and frisked. Let's stop everyone with a ridiculous comb-over -- must be hiding something under all that lacquer.

Expect 'stop and frisk' to be chanted at Trump's next beer hall rally.

Interesting that the only witches rightists seem to want to hunt are those outside their demographic.

I lived in NYC for 4 years when this was going on, one of the best deterrents, effective, if they would implement it in Chicago, it would drastically reduce a lot of the crime devouring that city. Now if you look at NYC since DeBlasio became mayor and stopped it, crime has been creeping up, homelessness is rising, people urinating and defecating on the streets, emboldened attacks on the police has greatly increased. Stop and frisk would be the sensible and logical thing to do, better to inconvenience someone for a moment than to take a chance.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/17/does-stop-and-frisk-reduce-crime/stop-and-frisk-has-lowered-crime-in-other-cities

I lived in NYC for 4 years when this was going on, one of the best deterrents, effective

Peraonal anecdotes aren't good evidence in a critical discourse.

Nobody is claiming that Terry stops don't reduce crime, the issue is they are often implemented in an unconstitutional manner. Yet again, you are arguing with your mental image of what others are saying.

Imagine how much Trump would like the idea if he were the one who was going to be stopped and frisked. Let's stop everyone with a ridiculous comb-over -- must be hiding something under all that lacquer.

Now I'm going to have that image in my mind for at least 2.5 seconds!!

Thanks CrazyJoe!

S

Peraonal anecdotes aren't good evidence in a critical discourse.

Particularly when they come from sources long suspected of being veracity challenged.

Rahm Emanuel has been a disaster for Chicago.

Former Chicago Police Officer Slams Mayor Emanuel: 'This Is Rahm's Last Stand'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLf51dM3HJM

Peraonal anecdotes aren't good evidence in a critical discourse.

That’s your personal opinion.

Nobody is claiming that Terry stops don't reduce crime, the issue is they are often implemented in an unconstitutional manner.

Yes, many complained but I saw first hand how the NYC crime rate fell it may be for some inconvenient, but when you look at the alternative like Chicago where they don’t do it you have nothing but lawlessness and chaos.

Particularly when they come from sources long suspected of being veracity challenged

That the left can never seem to beat. Go to OC for a week and go to South Chicago, tell me which is safer?

That’s your personal opinion.

Nope. Personal anecdotes not being good evidence in critical discourse is a fact.

Yes, many complained but I saw first hand how the NYC crime rate fell it may be for some inconvenient, but when you look at the alternative like Chicago where they don’t do it you have nothing but lawlessness and chaos.

Unconstitutional acts are mere inconveniences? Right. Got it.

You do realize that correlation does not mean causation, correct? Terry stops are one reason that crime rates fall, but it's not the only reason.

That the left can never seem to beat. Go to OC for a week and go to South Chicago, tell me which is safer?

This reply has zero relevance to your credibility being questioned.

Stop and frisk...$20 crack. Investigate offshore tax havens...$200000000.

People have a right to privacy.

If stop-n-frisk is going to become a policy, it needs to start in wealthy areas of town, outside law offices, at city hall, outside the financial markets for 6 months before adding other areas.

Gotta be fair for everyone.

I wish these people would speak proper English. It's 'stop-and-search', not 'stop-and-frisk'. The police search your bags, for instance, not just frisk you.

Of course stop-and-search is effective in reducing crime. It isn't a golden bullet, but it is part of an overall crime-reduction strategy.

Stop-and-search should be targeted, otherwise it just wastes police time. And the targets should be those demographic groups most likely to commit crimes. Reducing crime is of benefit to all law-abiding citizens, and is more important than some people's paranoia about discrimination.