[GBA]

It's the old liberty vs security argument.

Are you arguing for an all out police state? Which of your rights are you going to forfeit to feel "safe" in our dangerous world?

Better yet, why do we have only all or nothing choices? Do you think I'm saying do nothing at all, when I say they're doing too much?

If you're taking away rights, then you seem to be declaring some form of martial law. This may be what is required for many places, like NYC or Detroit, just as curfew laws may be justified in some cases.

Has police work changed such that there aren't ways to protect the many without violating the rights of all?

With government intercourse, I see us doing better with less "protection" than more.

[driftless2]

I'm arguing about profiling. Stop and frisk is just another kind of profiling. Nobody wants a police state, but everybody wants to be relatively safe and secure. I don't like airport random searches...I've been through the vigorous search, and it's not fun. But I also want to be secure. It all depends on the situation. If certain groups of Americans are far more likely to commit crimes than other groups, they should be liable to be searched. The constitution is not a suicide pact.

p.s. I was at a rock concert, Fleetwood Mac, in the Twin Cities earlier this year where all males entering the arena (myself included) were stopped and frisked. Did that violate my constitutional rights? I'm an older white male. I don't think it did. Maybe it would you.