In the video, it talked about a scenario where a police officer named McFadden stopped two men under suspicion of casing a store. He then frisked both men and found a revolver on both of them. They were arrested and charged with concealed carry of a firearm. The Supreme Court then had to decide whether or not it was constitutional for the officer to have probable cause to stop and search the men. Under the fourth amendment it states that a police officer has the right to stop and search if he has suspicion of someone committing or going to commit a crime. All justices but one agreed that stop and frisk was constitutional. As a group we have come to the conclusion that it could be a good idea, but from past experiences it has shown a negative impact on society. So with that being said, we believe that the stop and frisk method should be stopped until it can be properly acclimated. In 2002, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 97,296 times. 80,176 were totally innocent. In 2015, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 22,939 times. 18,353 were totally innocent (80 percent). 12,223 were black (54 percent). 6,598 were Latino (29 percent). 2,567 were white (11 percent). According to the study, the people who were racially profiled, such as African Americans and Latinos, showed less drug and weapon charges than the Caucasian group. With this study, it shows the negative correlations between races. Camvilla002, oregon002, CAE002, JE002, ZMW002, sweetiesasha.mattiejackson.002
I agree, the stop and frisk is really an awesome idea that can help prevent a lot of crimes. If officers are unbiased and instead only go off of reasonable suspicions, a lot of crimes could be prevented while not keeping the innocent public on their toes. It sounds great, but it practice it has been shown to fail. Based on the statistics you show, it clearly is a gateway for racist stereotypes and racial profiling to gain way, leading to heightened tension in society between the police and citizens. If there was only a better way to only provide jobs to officers that prove they are of no racial bias, then maybe the stop and frisk policies would be put to good use with their maximum effectiveness. Although I agree that it is used wrong, overall I think it is better to stop 100 people and catch on villain, then to stop 10 people and find them all innocent. - AJC002
While it's a plausible explanation for an officer to pat down someone if they find them suspicious, I agree with Justice Douglas in that there should be some type of probable cause. I think that although it may be able to slow down the crime rate, there's always a chance that an officer might implement and may even frame someone while they're frisking the suspect. In example, the officer might plant drugs on the suspect or whatnot. Suspicions may arise with what the police officer has to do but if they carry out probable cause and remain unbiased with reasonable suspicion, they have a better chance of slowing down crime rates. -JiminyxC002
Stop and frisk can be useful but at the same time it could get out of control. If the officer uses it with reasonable suspicion it could be okay but if officers make up something to say it was reasonable suspicion just to search that person no that's not okay. That is invading ones privacy. Some people may think that any type of stop and frisk is wrong because they don't have probably cause nut they do have reasonable suspicion. I can see where they are coming from with that because anyone can look suspicious. AW002
i understand that stop and frisk could get out of control, but i feel as if it is more effective in a good way. those men were about to pursue in a robbery but officer mcfadden stopped them by searching them and finding weapons. if he were just to let it go, those men could have had the potientally hurt or kill someone, i know he did the right thing by stopping those men. aaap_cougs002
I believe that stop and frisk can be useful if it is worked on. It has proved to be effective by drastically reducing the murder rate in New York for example. However, it caused great controversy by being deemed racist. Stats on the majority of the races stopped by the police do show that stop and frisk was racially charged. Steve002
This video talks about stop and frisk and how it was involved with the Terry v. Ohio case. Stop and frisk allows officers to question and frisk a suspicious individual without probable cause for an arrest, only if the officer can articulate a reasonable basis for the stop and frisk. Martin McFadden spots two males, Terry and Chilton walking back and forth between a store. A third man was seen by McFadden and so he knew the men where up to something, asking for there IDs. He then searches and pats down Terry looking for a gun which he finds on him and the other man and they were both charged with carrying concealed weapon. The debate happening after was if the officer has the right to stop and frisk without probable cause. The ruling then held the case going by the 4th amendment and deciding between that and the safety of citizens. With this case and any other similar , I feel like probable cause should be required in any search. Knowing that some officers take advantage and say they actually had a reason for a search without probable cause. KT002
While I agree, I also disagree. An officer should always have probable cause, yes. But, an officer can basically make up probable cause and still get away with the crimes. I think all people have the rights declared in our Bill of Rights. Stopping and frisking may be over riding the guaranteed rights of the U.S. OASIS_002
The Terry v. Ohio case was all about the stop and frisk policies. The court in this case decided that police are allowed to have the ability, even without probable cause for arrest, to stop and frisk any suspicious characters as long as they can prove a reasonable bias behind the stop. Three guys are watched over by a cop as they walk back and forth between a store. The cop stop and frisks them and finds that two were carrying concealed weapons and they are charged accordingly. The Terry v. Ohio case was basically a dicision that says either the safety of the people is important or the privacy of the people is important. Personally, I think safety is more important. However, it is well known that some cops are unreasonably bias and will take advantage of this ability, leading to unlawful arrests and hateful actions. Until we can widdle these individuals out of our law enforcement programs, I believe it is probably better to only be able to stop and frisk with proof of probable cause. - AJC002
I think its better to only be able to stop and frisk with proof of probable cause too. Like mentioned, sometimes officers make excuses for this action as if they were looking out for the safety of others which is a good excuse but I hope they don't get comfortable and use that every time. If a person actually looks like they are up to something, an officer has every right to stop and frisk but its unnecessary if they are just doing it out of boredom or to pick. If something looks suspicious and may be a threat to an officer or others around them, then i think stop and frisk without probable cause would be necessary and smart, but only in those circumstances. Kt002
AJC002, I could not agree with you more. This policy allows officers with an agenda to show their biases without getting and backlash for it. This policy allows officers to discriminate against minorities, which we see has been done time and again from the numbers, and get in no trouble for it. While the idea I feel was meant to help police prevent more crimes, I feel it really just creates more.-OKC002
I agree with the people who think that stop and frisk is an unconstitutional policy. The Fourth Amendment guarantees people protection of their person, and this policy literally just barely skates around that. The only reason it isn’t completely illegal and obvious of that fact, is the fact that police officers don’t actually search them when they pat them down. Technically they don’t go through their pockets, unless they find probable cause. They only were able to find this probable cause however, due to the random pat downs. This is not only wrong on a constitutional basis in my opinion, but I feel that it literally fuels racial profiling claims in New York City. Cops stopped 700,000 people in 2011 alone. 90 percent of these people were completely innocent of any crime at all, and 87 percent of all people stopped were black and Latino. The numbers of stop and frisks by the way, is a 600 percent increase from 2002. This policy allows officers to stop any suspicious Black and Latino man or woman they want with no repercussions at all. If a police officer truly needs to stop somebody, I feel they should have the probable cause in order to do so.- OKC002
I agree with some of what youre saying but then disagree with other parts. Say a cop is using the stop and frisk under the suspicion that the person that matched the discription of the person who was reported with a weapon on them is the one being searched. Since they technically can't go through the persons pockets and take the item wouldn't they be able to ask the person to remove whatever it is in their pockets to have some sort of confirmation? In return you aren't really violating the 4th Amendment at all because technically speaking you did not illegally search the person in question they willingly showed you the contents of their pocket. How ever the parts I agree with are what you are saying about New York. They are racial profiling certain types of individuals based on race and not really using probably cause or even suspicion to conduct the stop and frisk. Something with that method needs to change so that inocent people are being messed with based on the color of their skin. Ciaccio002
I enjoyed this video. I have always been curious as to where stopping and frisking arouse from. In 1968, when this became a court case, times were simpler. Policing was still developing and there was less scrutiny against the police. The officer in the Terry V. Ohio case had a reason to suspect that something was taking place. In the officer’s defense, I completely agree with his choice to frisk the subjects due to their suspicious behavior. Frankly, I am against the stop and frisk because I am a strong follower of the Constitution, however I agree with the action where it is needed. In today’s modern world, stopping and frisking is not as effective in most cases as it was in Terry V. Ohio. There is now a lot more issues against the police and a lack of trust. The stop and frisk should be utilized very selectively and not overdone. OASIS_002
I agree that it was interesting to see where stop and frisk came form. I also agree that stop and frisk was used correctly in that stituation, but it is harder to be implemented today. It has been performed unconstitutionally and has led to more harm that good. I do not believe that it should be used at all in today's police force. JAG02
I agree that McFadden did the right thing and that he was justified in stopping them and searching them since he believed that something was about to take place. I think that he did his job the way that he should have, and the court backed him up since he had probable suspicion and then found two weapons on the suspects. gh_blackhawks002
Terry v. Ohio was telling all about the stop and frisk polices and how and when they should be used. Back in 1968 this was a more common practice than it is today. Policing was still in its early stages and there wasn't this tension between police and the public like there is now. In this case the man in question Terry along with 3 others were found "boxing" a store. When McFadden saw that he had suspicion that the men were up to no good and decided to take action by using the stop and frisk method which potentially prevented a crime that day. In todays world the stop and frisk method is kinda fading. I would like to see more of the stop and frisk method used with our police officers so that those who are really not doing anything wrong aren't wrongly accused and end up in jail with now a record that is going to fallow them. With this police should use their discreation but also be careful to not over do it in some cases. Ciaccio002
This video talks about how Terry v Ohio relates to stop and frisk. It talks about how stop and frisk was originally ruled constitutional, even without probably cause, as long as the officer can show some "reasonable suspicion" as to why they stopped the individual. Stop and Frisk seemed like a good idea at the time. It was a way to proactively police and prevent some crimes from happening before they even started, but it was handled wrong. Stop and Frisk began to be mostly racially motivated, leading to a vast majority of these stops being minorities. This began to create extreme stress in police community relations, making minorities completely distrust the police force. I can see how stop and frisk seemed like a valid way to prevent crimes but it simply does not work in society and has no place in any police force. JAG002
This video tells how stop and frisk is used and why it as used against terry and the other two guys.Yes terry and his buddy was acting suspicious when they were walking by the same store every day. the officer had reasonable suspicion that they were going to do a crime or commit a crime. Stop and frisk in my opinions is okay if you have reasonable suspicion, but you shouldn't go around and do it to every person you think looks or seems suspicious. In this case he was walking back and forth by the same store everyday and that does seem suspicious. Even though the fourth amendment states that no officers is allowed to stop and frisk someone when no crime has been committed or is about to be committed. AW002
In Terry v. Ohio, we see that the stop and frisk method can, in fact, be very effective. McFadden, a police officer, saw the same two men walking back and forth past the same store. Although McFadden did not have probable cause, he did have probable suspicion of the two suspects. When he stopped them and started questioning them and asking them for their ID, they were very evasive. McFadden then searched Terry and the other suspect, finding two weapons. Because he had probable suspicion, this holds and is constitutional. I personally agree with this. I do not think that probable cause should necessarily be required for a police officer to stop someone and potentially search them. gh_blackhawks002
The trial Terry v. Ohio (1968), it was very effective and used when a police officer saw two men that kept walking past the same store over a short amount of time. he had stopped and frisk those men, and found weapons are both which made this stop-and-frisk very effective. the officer did not in fact had probable cause. I believe stop-and-frisk is a good way to insure safety in the police force. since McFadden (the police officer) saw a suspicion out of the two men, he had every right to search them. aaap_cougs002
In situations like these, I feel it is definitely necessary to stop and frisk those people because they were doing a suspicious action, walking past the same store over and over. As apposed to a Muslim man walking through an airport and he's the only person that gets a thorough search within the wide range of other people that had came through. Ky002
In this video, it talks about the situation where a police officer, McFadden, stopped two men for suspicion of casing a store. What this means is that the men kept walking past the same store again and again for a short period of time. The officer then frisked both of the men and searched them. Officer McFadden found a gun on both of their persons. Both men were arrested and charged with the concealed carry of a firearm. The United States Supreme Court had to determine whether or not it was constitutional for officer McFadden to have had probable cause to stop and search the men. According to the fourth amendment, it states that a police officer has the right to stop and search an individual if he or she has suspicion that that person is committing or going to commit a crime. All Supreme Court justices, except for one, came to the acceptance that the stop and frisk was in fact constitutional. Stop and frisk, even though it accounts for taking weapons off the street, has been declared a racist tactic used by police. It is responsible for more minorities being stopped than Caucasians. Stop and frisk could be a successful measure to reduce crimes, if it is worked on and not motivated by certain races. Steve002
Stop and frisk can be useful but at the same time it could get out of control. If the officer uses it with reasonable suspicion it could be okay but if officers make up something to say it was reasonable suspicion just to search that person just to do it. It isn't right just to search someone just because they look suspicious. That is basically racial profiling, such as saying Muslims are terrorist, it is also invading a persons privacy. Some people may think that any type of stop and frisk is wrong because they don't have an certified reason to have reasonable suspicion to search a person, I can see where they are coming from with that because anyone can look suspicious and have nothing on them and be completely innocent. Ky002
In the video, it talked about a scenario where a police officer named McFadden stopped two men under suspicion of casing a store. He then frisked both men and found a revolver on both of them. They were arrested and charged with concealed carry of a firearm. The Supreme Court then had to decide whether or not it was constitutional for the officer to have probable cause to stop and search the men. Under the fourth amendment it states that a police officer has the right to stop and search if he has suspicion of someone committing or going to commit a crime. All justices but one agreed that stop and frisk was constitutional. As a group we have come to the conclusion that it could be a good idea, but from past experiences it has shown a negative impact on society. So with that being said, we believe that the stop and frisk method should be stopped until it can be properly acclimated. In 2002, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 97,296 times. 80,176 were totally innocent. In 2015, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 22,939 times. 18,353 were totally innocent (80 percent). 12,223 were black (54 percent). 6,598 were Latino (29 percent). 2,567 were white (11 percent). According to the study, the people who were racially profiled, such as African Americans and Latinos, showed less drug and weapon charges than the Caucasian group. With this study, it shows the negative correlations between races. Camvilla002, oregon002, CAE002, JE002, ZMW002, sweetiesasha.mattiejackson.002
ReplyDeleteI agree, the stop and frisk is really an awesome idea that can help prevent a lot of crimes. If officers are unbiased and instead only go off of reasonable suspicions, a lot of crimes could be prevented while not keeping the innocent public on their toes. It sounds great, but it practice it has been shown to fail. Based on the statistics you show, it clearly is a gateway for racist stereotypes and racial profiling to gain way, leading to heightened tension in society between the police and citizens. If there was only a better way to only provide jobs to officers that prove they are of no racial bias, then maybe the stop and frisk policies would be put to good use with their maximum effectiveness. Although I agree that it is used wrong, overall I think it is better to stop 100 people and catch on villain, then to stop 10 people and find them all innocent. - AJC002
DeleteWhile it's a plausible explanation for an officer to pat down someone if they find them suspicious, I agree with Justice Douglas in that there should be some type of probable cause. I think that although it may be able to slow down the crime rate, there's always a chance that an officer might implement and may even frame someone while they're frisking the suspect. In example, the officer might plant drugs on the suspect or whatnot. Suspicions may arise with what the police officer has to do but if they carry out probable cause and remain unbiased with reasonable suspicion, they have a better chance of slowing down crime rates. -JiminyxC002
DeleteStop and frisk can be useful but at the same time it could get out of control. If the officer uses it with reasonable suspicion it could be okay but if officers make up something to say it was reasonable suspicion just to search that person no that's not okay. That is invading ones privacy. Some people may think that any type of stop and frisk is wrong because they don't have probably cause nut they do have reasonable suspicion. I can see where they are coming from with that because anyone can look suspicious. AW002
Deletei understand that stop and frisk could get out of control, but i feel as if it is more effective in a good way. those men were about to pursue in a robbery but officer mcfadden stopped them by searching them and finding weapons. if he were just to let it go, those men could have had the potientally hurt or kill someone, i know he did the right thing by stopping those men. aaap_cougs002
DeleteI believe that stop and frisk can be useful if it is worked on. It has proved to be effective by drastically reducing the murder rate in New York for example. However, it caused great controversy by being deemed racist. Stats on the majority of the races stopped by the police do show that stop and frisk was racially charged. Steve002
DeleteThis video talks about stop and frisk and how it was involved with the Terry v. Ohio case. Stop and frisk allows officers to question and frisk a suspicious individual without probable cause for an arrest, only if the officer can articulate a reasonable basis for the stop and frisk. Martin McFadden spots two males, Terry and Chilton walking back and forth between a store. A third man was seen by McFadden and so he knew the men where up to something, asking for there IDs. He then searches and pats down Terry looking for a gun which he finds on him and the other man and they were both charged with carrying concealed weapon. The debate happening after was if the officer has the right to stop and frisk without probable cause. The ruling then held the case going by the 4th amendment and deciding between that and the safety of citizens. With this case and any other similar , I feel like probable cause should be required in any search. Knowing that some officers take advantage and say they actually had a reason for a search without probable cause. KT002
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree, I also disagree. An officer should always have probable cause, yes. But, an officer can basically make up probable cause and still get away with the crimes. I think all people have the rights declared in our Bill of Rights. Stopping and frisking may be over riding the guaranteed rights of the U.S.
DeleteOASIS_002
The Terry v. Ohio case was all about the stop and frisk policies. The court in this case decided that police are allowed to have the ability, even without probable cause for arrest, to stop and frisk any suspicious characters as long as they can prove a reasonable bias behind the stop. Three guys are watched over by a cop as they walk back and forth between a store. The cop stop and frisks them and finds that two were carrying concealed weapons and they are charged accordingly. The Terry v. Ohio case was basically a dicision that says either the safety of the people is important or the privacy of the people is important. Personally, I think safety is more important. However, it is well known that some cops are unreasonably bias and will take advantage of this ability, leading to unlawful arrests and hateful actions. Until we can widdle these individuals out of our law enforcement programs, I believe it is probably better to only be able to stop and frisk with proof of probable cause. - AJC002
ReplyDeleteI think its better to only be able to stop and frisk with proof of probable cause too. Like mentioned, sometimes officers make excuses for this action as if they were looking out for the safety of others which is a good excuse but I hope they don't get comfortable and use that every time. If a person actually looks like they are up to something, an officer has every right to stop and frisk but its unnecessary if they are just doing it out of boredom or to pick. If something looks suspicious and may be a threat to an officer or others around them, then i think stop and frisk without probable cause would be necessary and smart, but only in those circumstances. Kt002
DeleteAJC002, I could not agree with you more. This policy allows officers with an agenda to show their biases without getting and backlash for it. This policy allows officers to discriminate against minorities, which we see has been done time and again from the numbers, and get in no trouble for it. While the idea I feel was meant to help police prevent more crimes, I feel it really just creates more.-OKC002
DeleteI agree with the people who think that stop and frisk is an unconstitutional policy. The Fourth Amendment guarantees people protection of their person, and this policy literally just barely skates around that. The only reason it isn’t completely illegal and obvious of that fact, is the fact that police officers don’t actually search them when they pat them down. Technically they don’t go through their pockets, unless they find probable cause. They only were able to find this probable cause however, due to the random pat downs. This is not only wrong on a constitutional basis in my opinion, but I feel that it literally fuels racial profiling claims in New York City. Cops stopped 700,000 people in 2011 alone. 90 percent of these people were completely innocent of any crime at all, and 87 percent of all people stopped were black and Latino. The numbers of stop and frisks by the way, is a 600 percent increase from 2002. This policy allows officers to stop any suspicious Black and Latino man or woman they want with no repercussions at all. If a police officer truly needs to stop somebody, I feel they should have the probable cause in order to do so.- OKC002
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of what youre saying but then disagree with other parts. Say a cop is using the stop and frisk under the suspicion that the person that matched the discription of the person who was reported with a weapon on them is the one being searched. Since they technically can't go through the persons pockets and take the item wouldn't they be able to ask the person to remove whatever it is in their pockets to have some sort of confirmation? In return you aren't really violating the 4th Amendment at all because technically speaking you did not illegally search the person in question they willingly showed you the contents of their pocket. How ever the parts I agree with are what you are saying about New York. They are racial profiling certain types of individuals based on race and not really using probably cause or even suspicion to conduct the stop and frisk. Something with that method needs to change so that inocent people are being messed with based on the color of their skin. Ciaccio002
DeleteI enjoyed this video. I have always been curious as to where stopping and frisking arouse from. In 1968, when this became a court case, times were simpler. Policing was still developing and there was less scrutiny against the police. The officer in the Terry V. Ohio case had a reason to suspect that something was taking place.
ReplyDeleteIn the officer’s defense, I completely agree with his choice to frisk the subjects due to their suspicious behavior. Frankly, I am against the stop and frisk because I am a strong follower of the Constitution, however I agree with the action where it is needed.
In today’s modern world, stopping and frisking is not as effective in most cases as it was in Terry V. Ohio. There is now a lot more issues against the police and a lack of trust. The stop and frisk should be utilized very selectively and not overdone.
OASIS_002
I agree that it was interesting to see where stop and frisk came form. I also agree that stop and frisk was used correctly in that stituation, but it is harder to be implemented today. It has been performed unconstitutionally and has led to more harm that good. I do not believe that it should be used at all in today's police force.
DeleteJAG02
I agree that McFadden did the right thing and that he was justified in stopping them and searching them since he believed that something was about to take place. I think that he did his job the way that he should have, and the court backed him up since he had probable suspicion and then found two weapons on the suspects.
Deletegh_blackhawks002
Terry v. Ohio was telling all about the stop and frisk polices and how and when they should be used. Back in 1968 this was a more common practice than it is today. Policing was still in its early stages and there wasn't this tension between police and the public like there is now. In this case the man in question Terry along with 3 others were found "boxing" a store. When McFadden saw that he had suspicion that the men were up to no good and decided to take action by using the stop and frisk method which potentially prevented a crime that day. In todays world the stop and frisk method is kinda fading. I would like to see more of the stop and frisk method used with our police officers so that those who are really not doing anything wrong aren't wrongly accused and end up in jail with now a record that is going to fallow them. With this police should use their discreation but also be careful to not over do it in some cases. Ciaccio002
ReplyDeleteThis video talks about how Terry v Ohio relates to stop and frisk. It talks about how stop and frisk was originally ruled constitutional, even without probably cause, as long as the officer can show some "reasonable suspicion" as to why they stopped the individual. Stop and Frisk seemed like a good idea at the time. It was a way to proactively police and prevent some crimes from happening before they even started, but it was handled wrong. Stop and Frisk began to be mostly racially motivated, leading to a vast majority of these stops being minorities. This began to create extreme stress in police community relations, making minorities completely distrust the police force. I can see how stop and frisk seemed like a valid way to prevent crimes but it simply does not work in society and has no place in any police force.
ReplyDeleteJAG002
This video tells how stop and frisk is used and why it as used against terry and the other two guys.Yes terry and his buddy was acting suspicious when they were walking by the same store every day. the officer had reasonable suspicion that they were going to do a crime or commit a crime. Stop and frisk in my opinions is okay if you have reasonable suspicion, but you shouldn't go around and do it to every person you think looks or seems suspicious. In this case he was walking back and forth by the same store everyday and that does seem suspicious. Even though the fourth amendment states that no officers is allowed to stop and frisk someone when no crime has been committed or is about to be committed. AW002
ReplyDeleteIn Terry v. Ohio, we see that the stop and frisk method can, in fact, be very effective. McFadden, a police officer, saw the same two men walking back and forth past the same store. Although McFadden did not have probable cause, he did have probable suspicion of the two suspects. When he stopped them and started questioning them and asking them for their ID, they were very evasive. McFadden then searched Terry and the other suspect, finding two weapons. Because he had probable suspicion, this holds and is constitutional. I personally agree with this. I do not think that probable cause should necessarily be required for a police officer to stop someone and potentially search them.
ReplyDeletegh_blackhawks002
The trial Terry v. Ohio (1968), it was very effective and used when a police officer saw two men that kept walking past the same store over a short amount of time. he had stopped and frisk those men, and found weapons are both which made this stop-and-frisk very effective. the officer did not in fact had probable cause. I believe stop-and-frisk is a good way to insure safety in the police force. since McFadden (the police officer) saw a suspicion out of the two men, he had every right to search them. aaap_cougs002
ReplyDeleteIn situations like these, I feel it is definitely necessary to stop and frisk those people because they were doing a suspicious action, walking past the same store over and over. As apposed to a Muslim man walking through an airport and he's the only person that gets a thorough search within the wide range of other people that had came through. Ky002
DeleteIn this video, it talks about the situation where a police officer, McFadden, stopped two men for suspicion of casing a store. What this means is that the men kept walking past the same store again and again for a short period of time. The officer then frisked both of the men and searched them. Officer McFadden found a gun on both of their persons. Both men were arrested and charged with the concealed carry of a firearm. The United States Supreme Court had to determine whether or not it was constitutional for officer McFadden to have had probable cause to stop and search the men. According to the fourth amendment, it states that a police officer has the right to stop and search an individual if he or she has suspicion that that person is committing or going to commit a crime. All Supreme Court justices, except for one, came to the acceptance that the stop and frisk was in fact constitutional. Stop and frisk, even though it accounts for taking weapons off the street, has been declared a racist tactic used by police. It is responsible for more minorities being stopped than Caucasians. Stop and frisk could be a successful measure to reduce crimes, if it is worked on and not motivated by certain races. Steve002
ReplyDeleteStop and frisk can be useful but at the same time it could get out of control. If the officer uses it with reasonable suspicion it could be okay but if officers make up something to say it was reasonable suspicion just to search that person just to do it. It isn't right just to search someone just because they look suspicious. That is basically racial profiling, such as saying Muslims are terrorist, it is also invading a persons privacy. Some people may think that any type of stop and frisk is wrong because they don't have an certified reason to have reasonable suspicion to search a person, I can see where they are coming from with that because anyone can look suspicious and have nothing on them and be completely innocent. Ky002
ReplyDelete