“Stop and frisk” is the most effective way of getting illegal weapons, mainly guns, off the streets of a crime-ridden city.
It does involve an involuntary surrender of 4th Amendment rights but a “crime emergency” situation, as declared by a city government, can allow this to take place (remember the old concept of “the public good”?)
Check how many weapons were removed from NY City’s streets over the past years when “stop and frisk” was policy. Then translate them into how many lives were saved, how many criminals were caught and jailed, how the streets became safer for honest citizens.
What is needed is a publicly explained policy on S&F and reasonable laws on putting that policy into effect without creating a police state.
It is a hard line to walk but it can be done. Otherwise, you can continue to stack up the bodies as they are doing in Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit, and Chicago, with a lot of children among them.
Your choice. I’m going with S&F to save lives.
Involuntary surrender of rights is Orwellian bs. Police state is what you advocate.
Got it. If Obama decides that there is a ‘gun emergency’ in the country and bans firearms, you’d be totally ok with that. I guess you’d have to, considering you believe the Bill of Rights is actually the Bill of Suggestions.
They can do whatever they want to, violate anyone’s rights, as long as they can demonstrate need. “Lots of crime here. I need to be able to stop and frisk people just whenever.”
If you don’t give a crap when someone’s 4th amendment rights are violated, you can’t expect anyone to listen to you when you decry background checks as restrictions on your 2nd amendment rights.
The bill of rights either means something, or it doesn’t.