• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Stop-and-Frisk a Necessary Evil?

Is Stop-and-Frisk a Necessary Evil?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 9.1%
  • No

    Votes: 25 75.8%
  • It's not "evil"

    Votes: 5 15.2%

  • Total voters
    33




I don't care about the racial profiling part. I care that cops have no damn business stopping and frisking ANYONE without a damn good articulable reason. It offends me right down to my freedom-loving Rebel soul.
 

You aren't going to fix cultural problems via the criminal justice system.
 
Nope. By taking weapons away from criminals they commit less crime and kill less people...
You said it lowers crime rates and has saved the lives of countless minorities. The thing is, there is little to no evidence that stop-and-frisk does anything at all. There certainly isn't any evidence that it saves "countless lives." Since your statement isn't based on any actual research, what are you basing it on?

Ray Kelly says stop & frisk saves lives. There’s no good evidence for that.
 
Stop and frisk touches everyone, not just blacks. If you do away with it that allows a criminal to carry a gun without having to feel reprisal.
 
Why does the left want to take the tools away from the police to prevent crime?
 
I usually stay away from these anonymous polls. If a person does not the guts or to make them public then they are are useless anyhow.
 
Last edited:

Just seems to be common sense, to be honest. I read stuff like this and it is in line with what just makes sense.

Last year, the police seized 780 guns, suggesting that guns were recovered in roughly one in 1,000 stops.

But Mr. Bloomberg said the policy was having an equally important effect by deterring people from carrying guns.

“By making it ‘too hot to carry,’ the N.Y.P.D. is preventing guns from being carried on our streets,” he said. “That is our real goal — preventing violence before it occurs, not responding to the victims after the fact.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/n...mberg-defends-stop-and-frisk-policy.html?_r=0
 
Research - especially peer-reviewed research - trumps "common sense" every time. Your assertions aren't supported by actual evidence. In fact, actual evidence demonstrates that your assertions are incorrect.
 
Why does the left want to take the tools away from the police to prevent crime?

Why does the right want to take the freedom away from the people to "possibly" prevent crime?
 
Why does the right want to take the freedom away from the people to "possibly" prevent crime?

so your for criminals running around with guns unfettered?
 
Research - especially peer-reviewed research - trumps "common sense" every time. Your assertions aren't supported by actual evidence. In fact, actual evidence demonstrates that your assertions are incorrect.

If a common sense conclusion is the same as a peer-reviewed on then... nope. And my assertions are supported by actual evidence. That is why I posted it.
 
so your for criminals running around with guns unfettered?

No. But I am also for the constitution of the United States.

Terry Frisks are a useful tool of police. But NYPD is abusing that capability, and its going to turn around to bite ALL law enforcement in the ass when, eventually, there will be a legal challenge that will make it to the supreme court and Terry v. Ohio's decision will be overruled.

NYPD needs to cool it, and use Terry Frisks as the exception rather than the norm.
 
That is the cops job.

You don't have to tell me what a cop's job is. I worked law enforcement for 7 years in North Carolina as a patrol officer.

But it is still the responsibility of law enforcement to ensure they are not violating the rights of the people.

NYPD's weakly supported use of the Terry Frisk borders a 4th amendment violation.
 

We don't really know that do we?
 
We don't really know that do we?

Its a statistical impossibility that they have "reasonable suspicion" of a crime in relation to EVERY one of the tens of thousands of terry frisks they conduct on a regular basis.

Reasonable Suspicion is still a requirement to conduct a lawful Terry Frisk.
 
Making innocent people feel like criminals is bad policy.
You can stop and search everyone. We call that a Police State. Let's try it for a few months and see how it works out.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…