Which didn’t stop Trump from campaigning that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Or his rival / thank-god-he’s-not-AG Rudy Giuliani claiming the same (esp. since it was part of Giuliani’s crackdown police tactics).
The idea that if you just stop anyone who maybe kinda-sorta catches your eye and search them that you will stop crime was always a bit sketchy. When SCOTUS struck it down in NYC because it was (quite clearly) being used on racial minorities more than on whites, conservative crime-busters insisted that violent crime would spike.
It didn’t. It continued its previous gradual drop.
So kudos to those folk who are willing to actually look at the statistics and admit they’re wrong. I have no doubt stop-and-frisk will remain popular amongst conservatives wanting to throw some red meat to their fear-mongered audiences, but it’s good to know that there are a few honest enough to not chime in when the evidence is so clearly against them.
A conservative columnist admits it: “We were wrong about stop-and-frisk”
After stop-and-frisk ended, crime in New York City kept dropping.
Actually, what does prevent crime is when the local residents feel safe in approaching a cop and providing useful info about what's going down in the neighborhood without worrying they'll be hassled about their immigration paperwork or their skin color or whatever.
Come on +Google+ fix the damn porn spam. It's way out of control.