Trump clarifies stop-and-frisk: I only meant Chicago

Donald Trump doubled down on his call for implementation of stop-and-frisk Thursday — but only in Chicago.

The Republican presidential nominee suggested the controversial stop-and-frisk policy to mitigate violent crime in America’s inner cities during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity broadcast Wednesday evening.


On Thursday, he clarified that he was only referring to enacting it in Chicago, where he said more than 3,000 shootings have taken place this year.

“I was really referring to Chicago with stop-and-frisk,” he told “Fox and Friends” during a phone interview Thursday morning. “They asked me about Chicago and I was talking about stop-and-frisk for Chicago.”

But while Trump scaled down where stop-and-frisk should be deployed, the self-proclaimed law-and-order candidate hardly softened his stance on the policing practice that studies have shown is biased. He cited New York, where a federal court ruled the practice unconstitutional in 2013 because it disproportionately impacts people of color (though an appeals court overturned the ruling, and the city eventually settled), as evidence that it works.

“I mean, the numbers were unbelievably changed,” he said of crime statistics before and after New York implemented stop-and-frisk. “I don’t mean just a little bit. It was massively changed, and it became a safe city. It went from an unsafe city to a safe city.”

Trump highlighted Chicago as a city that’s “out of control” right now but where stop-and-frisk is a necessity that can save the city from itself, suggesting it’s more dangerous to be there than in war-torn nations like Afghanistan.

“I think Chicago needs stop-and-frisk,” Trump said. “Now, people can criticize me for that or people can say whatever they want, but they asked me about Chicago, and I think stop-and-frisk, with good, strong, you know, good, strong law and order. But you have to do something. It can’t continue the way it’s going.”

David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to President Barack Obama, blasted Trump’s “problematic” rhetoric — even if he was only referring to Chicago.

“That’s like taking a can of kerosene and pouring it over a fire,” he said of Trump’s call for stop-and-frisk during an interview with CNN. “It wasn’t what was needed.”

Trump shared his denotation of the term, first explaining that “there are different levels” to stop-and-frisk. “Basically, they will, if they see poss… — you know, they’re proactive, and if they see a person possibly with a gun or they think may have a gun, they will see the person, and they’ll look and they’ll take the gun away,” Trump said. “They’ll stop, they’ll frisk, and they’ll take the gun away, and they won’t have anything to shoot with. I mean, how it’s not being used in Chicago is, to be honest with you, it’s quite unbelievable. And, you know, the police, the local police, they know who has a gun, who shouldn’t be having a gun. They understand that.”

Trump’s definition, however, excluded any racial bias — at a time when the nation is already reeling from a series of fatal shootings of black men at the hands of police officers just days apart, marked by unrest in Charlotte, North Carolina, where Gov. Pat McCrory declared a state of emergency Wednesday evening.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Trump surrogate, hailed the practice as a strategy that reduced crime and is the solution to reducing gun violence.

“Because it takes the gun right out of your hand,” said Giuliani, who added that no one is taking guns away in New York or Chicago “because bad guys don’t go register” guns.

“You know, ‘Fat Tony’ Salerno doesn’t go get a gun permit. Neither does the hood on the street go get a permit,” he continued. “You know why? There’s probably a warrant for his arrest and he’s gonna go to jail. So he doesn’t get a permit.”

Trump contended that “you can’t let the system go the way it’s going,” adding that “some people” think stop-and-frisk is “a great idea, and some people probably don’t like it” — New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is of the latter group.

De Blasio condemned stop-and-frisk, insisting that it “created a real wedge between police and community and created division.” De Blasio credited “a systematic strategic approach to policing,” not stop-and-frisk, for reduced crime in New York.

“You know, Donald Trump talks about stop-and-frisk like he knows the facts. He has had no experience with policing, no experience with public safety,” de Blasio told CNN. “He should really be careful because if we reinstituted stop-and-frisk all over this country, you would see a lot more tension between police and community.”

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest declined to respond to Trump's comments.

"I think it does raise questions that a politician would be so dogmatic about protecting second amendment rights yet rather cavalier about protecting the constitutional prohibition against an illegal search and seizure," he said. "It might lead one person to conclude that the politician is more interested in playing politics than finding a solution."

But Earnest made sure to note that stop-and-frisk is not the type of practice the administration and its allies support.

"Expanding and doubling down on stop and frisk policies is not among the suggestions, I think for rather obvious reasons."

Brent Griffiths contributed to this story.