Replies

1) There was a drop in crime, yes, but there were other cities that saw equally large drops in crime without stop and frisk. Also, the NYPD implemented and improved other programs at the same time it was implementing stop and frisk. So, it’s hard/impossible to determine the extent to which stop and frisk lowered crime.

2) By your logic, it seems that any effective program would be constitutional. That’s simply not the case.

Here is what I think: societies do what it takes to establish and maintain safety. If one group of citizens, like Blacks and Hispanics, commit an outsized percentage of crime, different standards must apply. Common sense must be used. It is not much different than when disaster strikes...normal rules are many times obviated for the benefit of public safety.

Many American cities with large populations of Blacks and Hispanics have huge amounts of crime due to those groups. But every area is not necessarily the same. El Paso, which has an overwhelmingly high percentage of Hispanics, has a very low murder rate. Stop and Frisk is not necessary in El Paso.

What are the rights of the people who are not committing large amounts of crime? Are they supposed to live in fear and danger from the criminal element because the latter's constitutional rights are supposedly being violated? I think not.