I am completely against any iteration of "Stop and Frisk".
There is the pesky Fourth Amendment thing....
But why is it that no one will admit, or touch or even just fucking state the obvious:
The police stopped young black men under "Stop and Frisk" disproportionally simply because they got results...
Stopping carloads or groups of white dudes didn't yield the drugs and weapons IN PROPORTION....
Fishermen fish in lakes where the fish are, not in barrels where they aren't.
Willie Sutton, a notorious bank robber in the 30's, 40's and 50's, was reported to have said, when asked "why do you rob banks?"...."Because that is where the money is"
Same same with "Stop and Frisk":
You can see, by their manner, the way they are dressed, etc., be they white or black or hispanic, which individuals are likely to result in a fruitful search. I can, if you are observant, you can, and especially experienced cops can.
If the fact that they choose not to waste their time on clean cut kids of any race offends you...if the fact that there is a higher proportion of clean cut kids that are white (and to a lesser percent, hispanic) and a lower proportion in the inner city black kids offends you...then I am sorry your pollyana viewpoint is hiding reality from you.
Again, I believe that Donald is wrong on 'Stop and Frisk".....
But why won't anyone tell the truth?
there is that wonderful but overlooked word the founders gave us, reasonable. in chicago's case, it would be reasonable to use enhanced stop and frisk, up to a point. that point would be when murder/shootings are reduced to an acceptable level. then it would be reasonable to cease. the fourth doesn't say NO searches it says no unreasonable ones. we decide as a society what is reasonable. i didn't like richmond, va.'s project exile that mandated long sentences for illegal gun possession but i have to admit it worked. the vast majority of these shooting are being done by a very few actors.
ReplyDelete