|
Trump campaign blames Rauner-signed law for Chicago violence increase
Thursday, Sep 29, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Last week, before the debate, I asked the governor’s office where Gov. Rauner stands on reinstating “stop and frisk.” Trump had said that this was absolutely needed in Chicago. This was the response…
Yep. The body cam bill did, indeed, lay down rules on stop and frisk. And the ACLU did back the proposal. And Trump repeated his assertion during this week’s debate that stop and frisk must be implemented in the city. * Now, check out this tweet from CNN’s Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta…
* Drill down…  So, maybe the governor will have to answer now that the Trump campaign is blaming a bill signed into law by Rauner for the increased crime problem in Chicago. Or not. He’s been awfully good at avoiding this topic.
|
 |
|
|
- Sir Reel - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 10:17 am:
Yes, Chicago’s a mess, but thanks Gov for standing up for your city, your state. Once again you’ve made Illinois proud. Not.
- AlfondoGonz - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 10:24 am:
Trump is an imbecile and Rauner has no convictions beyond his business interests. Stop and frisk being brought to the spotlight is important, though. Supporters of it need to really understand 3 things:
1. It circumvents 4th Amendment protections, Period, end of story. Should stop and frisk be implemented and no doubt eventually challenged, it will fail the constitutionality test.
2. It is not effective.
3. The argument that “only criminals have to worry” is so patently wrong, I can’t stand it. If anything, the current climate has taught us that confrontational interactions with the police can escalate quickly. Should we allow the police free range to hassle anyone when they have “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot” (the explanation for what that consists of is no more clear), it will increase interactions between citizens and police 10 fold, and innocent people will be hurt.
Stop and frisk is bad policy. It is ineffective policy. And it is illegal policy.
- Anon - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 10:25 am:
It’s best not to comment on presidential politics when the candidate your party nominated says you’re a failure.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 10:27 am:
It could be a great opportunity, in the governmental, for Rauner to pivot off Trump, even take a shot, and in a narrow way, try to seem engaged, while answering nothing.
Takes incredible “on your feet” skill, or a well-written retort that opens and closes the door would work too.
It’s out there to make some hay… narrow, narrow hay.
- Jocko - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 10:29 am:
Bruce should set Donald straight by telling him, “Bad mouthing Chicago is MY job!”
While he’s at it, maybe Bruce can pry the name of the top Chicago officer who can stop the city’s violence in a week.
- Slippin' Jimmy - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 10:30 am:
Your turn Gov.! (this should be good)
- Streator Curmudgeon - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 10:36 am:
When it comes to Trump, Rauner’s response is “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.”
- Saluki - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 10:39 am:
Why should he have to comment on it?
- Ahoy! - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 10:41 am:
I think this is a gift for Rauner, he has Trump calling him out on a very unpopular law with minority communities.
- RNUG - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 10:54 am:
Everyone commenting that “stop and frisk” is illegal, go read the SCOTUS Terry v Ohio decision. Also more recent decisions expanding what is “reasonable suspicion”.
Add in the IL laws requiring a FOID for firearms possession and the concealed carry license requirements. Wouldn’t be that hard, based on crime patterns, to claim reasonable suspicion in certain areas … especially if the city has clear guidelines in writing.
Even the NYC case (that was discussed during the presidential debate) based on racial profiling claims that had an initial “unconstitutional” decision was reversed by a higher court. Unless a future case proves crystal clear racial profiling with no other justification, it is likely “stop and frisk” will survive if the courts follow current precedent.
- @MisterJayEm - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 10:55 am:
“Why should he have to comment on it?”
When Rauner didn’t submit a budget even though it’s mandated by the constitution, it became pretty clear that he doesn’t have to do anything.
– MrJM
- OneMan - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 10:59 am:
The first thing is politically, what advantage does engaging with Trump give the governor, none….
Secondly, it’s a 4th amendment problem and even if it isn’t directly, there should be real probable cause to do that to anyone regardless of it being a high crime or low crime area.
Third, going to find the slamming of Rauner by folks here on this because, well it’s Rauner and it is the reflexive reaction.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 10:59 am:
–Why should he have to comment on it?–
Somebody blames you for increased shootings and homicides and you don’t defend yourself?
- One hand //ing - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 11:07 am:
===Why should he have to comment on it?===
He doesn’t have to address it. Just like he doesn’t have to be governor of Illinois. Just like he didn’t have to say he’d be Illinois’ biggest cheerleader. Just like he doesn’t have to singlehandedly finance Illinois Republican politics. Just like he doesn’t have to promise to organize a massive GOTV operation that will benefit Trump. Just like he doesn’t have to say there’s “no way” he’ll allow Hillary to win when he knows he’s around a safe audience. Just like he doesn’t have to pretend every Democrat in Illinois is on payroll for the House Speaker while pretending his own party’s national standard-bearer doesn’t even exist.
If he doesn’t want to answer questions about politics, he can just stay out of politics.
- ZC - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 11:08 am:
It doesn’t take that much by Rauner, he just has to be willing to say, “No comment,” again and again and again.
It’s not a question really of intelligence or cunning, it’s just raw willpower and discipline. I don’t think there’s any question Rauner has plenty of that.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 11:10 am:
The reporting requirement in the SB1304 Body Cam bill means that plainclothes police without name tags have to identify themselves when they stop citizens. That’s basic accountability.
In addition to being obsessed with stop-and-frisk, Trump touted his NRA endorsement. Since Brandon Phelps and Todd Vandermyde were the ones who put stop-and-frisk in his concealed carry bill disguised as Duty to Inform, it’s clear to everyone in the country that the NRA, the police unions, and alt right politicians like Trump are all on the same team.
- AlfondoGonz - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 11:14 am:
RNUG
I’m familiar with the Terry decision. That was 55 years ago. The Supreme Court is not infallible. Should it get challenged again, there is little doubt it would be overturned. It’s pretty simple. 4th amendment protects against illegal search and seizure. Search and seizure is illegal if it is not supported by probable cause, which is a higher threshold than reasonable suspicion. Seizure = stop. Search = frisk.
It is contrary to the language and spirit of the 4th amendment to allow State actors to stop (seize) and frisk (search) people based upon what is, more or less, a hunch.
- anon - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 11:16 am:
This Trump quote might be fodder for the 2018 gubernatorial campaign. “Trump accuses Rauner of signing bill that increased shootings and murders in Chicago.”
- Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 11:20 am:
I don’t know what sounds sillier right about now, the attacks on Rauner by certain commentators here, the attacks on Rauner by Trump, the attacks on Senator Raoul, the Illinois Senate and Illinois House that passed these bills, or . . . wait, only Rauner is getting attacked here. Whatever.
Let’s start with the concept that Stop and Frisk is still constitutional and legal in this country, (See Terry v. Ohio, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968) in spite of smirky Hillary’s and misinformed Holt’s opinions to the contrary.
This bill regulates the practice of Stop and Frisk. It seems to create a paper trail so that this practice can be monitored better.
I know during election season, logic, reason and intelligence go out the window, but take a breath everyone and focus a bit.
- Last Bull Moose - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 11:43 am:
Rauner is hoping the Trump movement has the same lasting impact as “Win with Wilkie”.
I appreciate RNUG giving the case law background on stop and frisk. Clearly reasonable suspicion is dependent on the situation. At the extreme is when the situation is so bad that curfews are imposed or martial law declared. There must be gradations before extremes are reached.
- walker - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 11:47 am:
Who cares what Trump says about Chicago’s murders? He’s mouthing Rudy Giuliani’s words anyway.
What matters is: does New-York-style stop and frisk reduce shootings, and is it legal? The answer to both questions is no. Can it be revised so that it could work? Do we have other plans that will work? That’s what we need from our leaders.
- Federalist - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 11:51 am:
Whatever Chicago is doing, or not doing, it ain’t workin’!
Back to the drawing board.
- Chicagonk - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 11:59 am:
Until Illinois and Cook County decide that gun crimes necessitate tougher sentences, the violence will not go away. Spend a day in a Cook County courtroom and you will be shocked at how many violent crime cases are dismissed, plead down to misdemeanors with no jail time, or continued for no good reason.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 12:23 pm:
“Why should he have to comment on it?”
That’s right–as long as he can get away with it.
Rauner is pretty slick and is a very good politician, for someone who’s an outsider and not a politician.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 12:37 pm:
===…only Rauner is getting attacked here.===
Governors own their signatures.
You’re welcome.
- Hit or Miss - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 12:46 pm:
“Stop and Frisk is a tool that had been available for the police in Chicago but a new policy, forced by the ACLU went into effect on Jan 1, 2016 and has caused for stop and frisk to be down by 80% this year.”
The year 2013 was important when it comes to murders in Chicago. That year, 2013, there were 415 murders in Chicago during the year, the lowest for the city since 1965. Every year since then, during both 2014 and 2015 as well as in 2016, the number of murders in the city has increased over the preceding year.
If the reduction in the use of stop and frisk started in 2016 could it have caused the two previous years increase in murders in Chicago, not likely. Might not the real cause of the increase in murders during 2016 be the same as caused the increase in murders the two previous years? One needs to ask what factor(s) caused murders in Chicago to stop going down in 2013 and increase every year since then.
- OneMan - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 12:49 pm:
Yeah, but I don’t see anyone here really saying anything against the law he signed.
The complaints see to me…
He should comment
or
I don’t like Rauner in general. Ergo the comments about the budget, his business mindeset, etc. none of which seem remotely related to stop and frisk or Trump.
So when some political figures in this state don’t engage the media on a issue their chessmasters, when the governor doesn’t do it, it seems to just give everyone a chance to complain about the governor.
- OneMan - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 12:54 pm:
they are chessmasters….
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 12:57 pm:
–I don’t know what sounds sillier right about now,..–
I’m thinking the obsequious sycophant who has a nervous breakdown every time one of his favorite politicians is criticized.
They can all give as good as they get. Where are you from? Is this all new to you? It’s part of the process and has been going on since the crust cooled.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 1:01 pm:
===Yeah, but I don’t see anyone here really saying anything against the law he signed===
My comment specifically, not speaking for anyone, is just that.
The governor owns his signature, and if Trump wants to after legislation passed and signed, it IS fair and just to ask the governor, ANY governor, their thoughts on criticism.
It comes with the gig.
===So when some political figures in this state don’t engage the media on a issue their chessmasters…===
I don’t remember that argument, or that Rauner is or isn’t a chess master in my remarks.
All good, - OneMan -.
As an aside “Oswego-OswegoEast” on Friday, think it’s at Oswego East.
Should be a heck of a game, hearing both teams are really pumped.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 1:22 pm:
On top of everything else, Trump’s opinion that this law is the cause of all of our suffering is at the very least simplistic. There’s a lot more going on than not allowing cops to randomly detain and pat down any black man they see.
- Daniel Plainview - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 2:01 pm:
- obsequious sycophant -
That’s just plain unfair, word. Louis’ household is compensated handsomely for his obsequiousness.
- Correlation does not equal causation - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 3:46 pm:
Stop and Frisk ends in New York — violent crime goes down.
Stop and Frisk ends in Chicago — violent crime goes up.
That should tell us there are likely several factors at play beyond just Stop and Frisk.
Has anyone been to Brooklyn lately? The rate of gentrification has been stunning. Neighborhoods that were among New York’s poorest and most crime-ridden just 10 or 15 years ago are now filled with hipsters and yuppies and million dollar condos. Similar (but not as extensive) gentrification has occurred around Chicago’s downtown. Which might be why crime has decreased at a faster rate in NYC than it has here.
Gentrification is just one factor in lower crime rates. There are many others.
- RNUG - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 3:52 pm:
- AlfondoGonz -
Right now it’s the law. When it gets challenged, I suspect it will be somewhat restricted but not completely eliminated. We’ll see, probably over the next few years if more aggressive policing ramps up in various cities.
- Veil of Ignorance - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 4:11 pm:
No comment on presidential politics, but he’ll take every opportunity to talk about how crappy our state is compared to Indiana. Inspiring leadership.
- CrazyHorse - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 4:25 pm:
“On top of everything else, Trump’s opinion that this law is the cause of all of our suffering is at the very least simplistic.”
Totally false statement about what Trump has said. Not once did he say that simply not having stop and frisk in Chicago was the cause of all of the suffering in the AA community. He simply thinks it would bring the murder rate down as it did in NYC.
“There’s a lot more going on than not allowing cops to randomly detain and pat down any black man they see.”
They always talk about Trump’s rhetoric but that statement is an example of extreme rhetoric from the left. Patting down any black man they see? You can’t even have an honest discussion about the subject if this is truly your view of it.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 4:26 pm:
===as it did in NYC===
Not true.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 4:30 pm:
=== Patting down any black man they see?===
You missed the word “randomly.”
===You can’t even have an honest discussion about the subject if this is truly your view of it. ===
It’s impossible to have an honest discussion with someone who either can’t read or won’t respond to the other person’s actual argument.
- CrazyHorse - Thursday, Sep 29, 16 @ 4:46 pm:
Rich, perhaps I should have said it MAY have helped contribute to a decline in the murder rate in NYC. There is almost always a confluence of factors that determine any outcome.