Fathead Candy Crowley set the im-moderator's precedent. m/r
Lester Holt says stop and frisk is unconstitutional, but it's not!
In
the recently concluded presidential debate, Donald Trump said Chicago's
soaring murder rate could be cut by implementing a stop and frisk
policy and that such a policy did wonders to reduce New York City's
crime rate. Thereupon, debate moderator and liberal media fact-checker
Lester Holt interjected and informed the 100 million viewers watching
the debate that stop and frisk is unconstitutional.
Sorry, but the Holt was wrong.
To
begin with, Trump was correct in noting that stop and frisk was
effective in reducing crime, particularly violent gun-related crime in
New York City. Looking at the evidence, former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani
claims that this policy played a major role in reducing crime in the Big
Apple by 85% from 1994 to 2014. As Giuliani says, stop and frisk
helped transform New York from being the crime capital of America to one
of the safest cities in the country. And since six out of ten murder
victims in New York tend to be black, stop and frisk saved the lives thousands of African-Americans.
As to the constitutionality of stop and frisk, as Rudy Giuliani aptly points out:
Sorry, but the Holt was wrong.
 |
| "Candy" Holt |
As to the constitutionality of stop and frisk, as Rudy Giuliani aptly points out:
Stop and frisk is based on an 8-1 decision by the Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio. ...-got to links-
No comments:
Post a Comment