During Monday night’s debate at Hofstra University, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump continued his effort to promote the expansion of stop-and-frisk throughout the country. (New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, for one, does not approve.)
Not about to let Trump get away with his advocacy of an unconstitutional police program, debate moderator Lester Holt attempted to set the record straight. “Stop-and-frisk was found unconstitutional in New York because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men,” the journalist said.
“No, you’re wrong,” Donald Trump interrupted. “Uh, it went before a judge who was a very against-police judge, it was taken away from her, and our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case.”
“The argument is that it’s a form of racial profiling,” Holt replied.
“No, the argument is that we have to take the guns away from these people that have them and that are bad people that shouldn’t have them,” Trump said, changing the subject. “These are felons. These are people that are bad people.”
Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on August 12, 2013. Though New York City attempted to fight the ruling, the city’s appeal was eventually dropped by Mayor de Blasio.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary even chimed in, tweeting the definition of stop-and-frisk, which they also note was found unconstitutional.
This is the definition of stop and frisk, found unconstitutional. https://t.co/X97FuKpD33
— Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) September 27, 2016
(Via Politico)
