Quote:The concept of stop and frisk in and of itself isn't antithetical to the constitution or the second amendment.


1.) The numbers don't lie. NY dropped 80% in murder rates. That translates to tens of thousands of lives. That kind of difference can't be ignored.


2.) Stop Frisk and question can be directly carried over to states that have conceal carry or even open carry laws. Responsible gun owners have their documentation and permits to carry with them. The purpose of the tactic is to allow Officers to use their reasonable discretion to engage people they believe to be suspicious in questioning after a frisk to protect the officer or to detect contraband.


Proactive policing in certain high crime areas can make sense. The role of the state is to protect its citizens. I agree with you that the state should allow citizens to carry, that's not in opposition to the idea that if a cop has a reasonable suspicion that someone is up to no good that he should be able to engage that person to ensure the public safety.

Nope nope nope, forget the why and look at the how. The policy of stop and frisk has nothing to do with probable cause. There has always been a precedent that an officer can search under probable cause the stop and frisk took it to another level with suspension.


In places like New York and Chicago no one is allowed to carry a gun, so stop frisk and confiscate is just another gun grab. It doesn't work you keep saying 80% reduction but stats are so eaisly manipulated. I believe in consistency the solution isn't more government checkpoints, the solution is to remove the walking target off innocents backs and take down the gangs. Which is a whole different issue caused by more government programs like the war on drugs.

---