Leftists have bastardized the term “discrimination” to the point that it does far more than just shield illegal immigrants living in so-called sanctuary cities. Allegations of prejudice have also resulted in the reduction of “stop and frisk,” a tool law enforcement departments commonly use to target potential criminals and suspects and help purge high-risk areas of crime. In New York City in particular, the policy has been significantly weakened despite its proven effectiveness.

For example, last summer a woman named Karina Vetrano was raped and murdered, but the case for a while went cold because “authorities had very little information identifying her killer,” Fox News reports. But authorities eventually made progress after “a review of stop-and-frisk reports from the area near the crime scene … helped cops zero in on 20-year-old Chanel Lewis — who was arrested Saturday and charged with second-degree murder.”

Residents undoubtedly welcome this development, of which there are myriad examples. But none of it is stopping city officials from enacting additional blockades. Fox says the city last week agreed to stop deploying the tactic in private apartment complexes. This probably comes as welcome news to folks like Lester Holt, who as moderator of a debate in September backed Hillary Clinton’s dubious position on the matter.

While Holt was technically correct in that a judge four years ago decreed some of the method illegal, his status as a district judge made his rendering incomplete and subject to additional scrutiny. Furthermore, the judge was eventually dismissed and an appeal was never heard. In other words, to borrow a climate counterpoint, the science isn’t settled. As for those who continue to object to it, they should consider the criminal ramifications and the documented reality that some murder cases can go cold without it.