What cops need to know about the first debate between Trump and Clinton
Doug Wyllie, PoliceOne Editor at Large
The two major party candidates traded sharp jabs over myriad issues in the presidential debate held at Hofstra University on Long Island, including some on police matters currently in public discourse
A presidential debate in this modern age is a mix of personal confrontation, voyeuristic reality television, and simultaneous social media warfare. The first major event of the 2016 autumn electoral season was no exception. During the first of three presidential debates, the two major party candidates demonstrated their differing views on a host of important issues. Absent from the stage were Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein, but Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton had 90 minutes to argue that they should be the next president of the United States.
The debate had high moments for both candidates, and it had missed opportunities for each as well. Neither landed a knock-out punch and neither catastrophically imploded. Clinton was not afflicted with a minute-long coughing fit, and Trump did not go wildly off script. Interestingly, it was not must-see TV as had been advertised. It was not a Kennedy-Nixon piece of television history and nobody had a “there you go again” Reagan-esque retort.
Moderated by Lester Holt (who anchors NBC Nightly News) and held at Hofstra University on Long Island, the two candidates were questioned on three main themes: “achieving prosperity,” “securing America,” and “America’s direction.” In case you were out on patrol, or wisely spending your time watching Monday Night Football, here is a brief summary of the debate.
The candidates on law enforcement
It took a while — and several adult beverages if a viewer was playing one of the drinking games which were the chatter on social media — but they eventually got to law enforcement matters.
About 45 minutes into the evening, Holt began the segment of the debate about police by questioning Clinton on the state of racial relations in the country.
“Race has been a big issue in this campaign, and one of you is going to have to bridge a very wide and bitter gap, so how do you heal the divide?” Holt asked.
In her reply, Clinton quickly pivoted to police-community relations.
“Unfortunately race still determines too much. Often [it] determines where people live, what kind of education in their public schools they can get, and yes, it determines how they’re treated in the criminal justice system,” Clinton said.
Clinton invoked the two recent OIS incidents in Tulsa and Charlotte, and promoted her plan to change the criminal justice system, which includes proposals to reform mandatory minimum sentences, addressing what she feels is implicit bias and racial profiling by police, and strengthening the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
“We have to restore trust between communities and the police,” Clinton said. “We have to work to ensure that our police are using the best training, the best techniques — that they’re well prepared to use force only when necessary. Everyone should be respected by the law, and everyone should respect the law. Right now that’s not the case in our neighborhoods.”
Then, Clinton took the opportunity to speak on her stance on the Second Amendment.
“The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death among African American men — more than the next nine causes put together,” Clinton said. “We have to tackle the plague of gun violence, which is a big contributor to a lot of the problems we have today.”
Trump countered with one of the key themes of his campaign.
“Hillary Clinton does not want to use a couple of words — law and order. If we don’t have it, we’re not going to have a country. We need law and order in our country,” Trump said.
Trump added that he has received the endorsement of the endorsement of the National Fraternal Order of Police as well as numerous local police organizations. “We have endorsements from I think almost every police group — a large percentage of them,” he said.
Then, countering Clinton on the matter of guns, Trump spoke of the increased violence on the streets of Chicago (a city with perhaps the most restrictive gun laws in the nation). Trump cited the thousands of people shot and hundreds of people killed in the Windy City this year alone, and he suggested that Chicago PD consider using the policy of stop and frisk to quell the violence.
“It worked very well in New York. It brought the crime rate way down. You take the gun away from the criminal who shouldn’t have shouldn’t be having it. We have gangs roaming the streets, and in many cases, they’re illegally here. They’re illegal immigrants, and they have guns, and they shoot people. And we have to be very strong, and we have to be very vigilant,” Trump said.
During her counterpoint, Clinton dug in further on her position on gun control.
“I believe strongly that common sense gun safety measures would assist us… we’ve got too many military-style weapons on the streets. In a lot of places, our police are outgunned,” Clinton said.
In rebuttal, Trump turned directly to Clinton and said, “When it comes to stop and frisk, you’re talking about taking guns away. I’m talking about taking guns away from gangs.”
Trump cited the fact that prior to the use of stop and frisk in New York City, the Big Apple had thousands of murders per year, and after that policy was put in place, the annual murder rate dropped to about 500.
“Five hundred is a lot of murders. Five hundred is supposed to be good? But we went from two thousand, two hundred murders and stop and frisk brought it down to five hundred… Stop and frisk had a tremendous impact on the safety of New York City,” Trump said.
Trump also pointed out the fact that ending stop and frisk in New York was more about political entanglements than it was about the Constitution of the United States. In short, at a time when the office of the mayor was transitioning from someone who supported the tactic (Bloomberg) to one who campaigned vehemently against it (de Blasio), a federal appeals panel denied a request to overturn a local judge’s ruling that it intentionally discriminated against minorities.
Soon thereafter, stop and frisk effectively ended in New York, despite the fact that similar police-citizen contacts are conducted daily under the Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court decision.
Law enforcement on the candidates
Entering into the late night hours, pundits on FOX News and CNN seemed to believe that Clinton came out roughly on top, and at the time of this writing, the buzz on social media seems to indicate that Trump has some work to do in his debating skills. However, in the wake of this debate, it is fair to speculate that viewers nationwide who had already made up their minds in this race remain committed to their chosen candidate.
It is also reasonable to conclude that the overwhelming majority of American police officers will cast their votes for Donald Trump on November 8th — a great many have already publicly cast their support for the Republican nominee. Recall the abovementioned endorsements by the National Fraternal Order of Police as well as other local FOPs.
It is unsurprising that the National FOP came out in support of Trump — Democrat Hillary Clinton refused to even meet with the group to elicit their support. Furthermore, from the outset, Trump has attempted to position himself as “the law and order candidate” beginning with his remarks about criminal acts committed by undocumented immigrants back at the launch of his campaign.
Meanwhile, Clinton has persistently courted votes from members of anti-police groups like Black Lives Matter. Granted, the FOP leans republican, but recall that the union backed Bill Clinton back in 1996, so their backing of Trump this year was no certainty. Putting BLM leaders on the stage at rallies is not a good way to garner the support of most police officers.
The two candidates will debate again in coming weeks — on Sunday, October 9, 2016 in Missouri, and on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 in Las Vegas — so tonight’s events are likely not the determining factor in this contest.
We shall see what the future holds and how policing matters are discussed by the candidates seeking the highest office in the land.
What say you? Post your thoughts in the comments section below.
About the author
Doug Wyllie is Editor at Large for PoliceOne, responsible for providing police training content and expert analysis on a wide range of topics and trends that affect the law enforcement community. An award-winning columnist — he is the 2014 Western Publishing Association “Maggie Award” winner in the category of Best Regularly Featured Digital Edition Column — Doug has authored more than 900 feature articles and tactical tips. Doug is also responsible for planning and recording the PoliceOne Podcast, Policing Matters, as well as being the on-air host for PoliceOne Video interviews. Doug also works closely with the PoliceOne Academy to develop training designed to prepare cops for the fight they face every day on the street.
Doug regularly represents PoliceOne as a public speaker in a variety of forums and is available for media interviews — he as appeared on numerous local and national radio and television news programs, and has been quoted in a host of print publications.
Doug is a member of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), an Associate Member of the California Peace Officers’ Association (CPOA), and a member of the Public Safety Writers Association (PSWA).