and your city is mostly white and most of the people that get stopped are black, you don't have to feel like a victim.
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
and your city is mostly white and most of the people that get stopped are black, you don't have to feel like a victim.
if that city had stop and frisk and most of the population is black and then most of the people stopped are black, do you have the 'right' to cry foul? Same can be said for the gangs in places like Chicago, NYC, and Detroit.....if most who are stopped are black or Asian or Hispanic..........
You get the guns from those who shouldn't have them in the first place and crime goes down....
What hypothetical city were you talking about that has a mostly white population and only blacks were stopped?
I said mostly blacks were stopped. Does it have to be a certain city.\?
The stop and frisk policy had nothing to do with the city as much as it had to do with the area of the city. It also wasn't based on race but on crime rate. Actually, the policy isn't new nor unique to the US. It's actually one of "stop, question, and frisk". If done correctly, the officer involved must have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has or is about to happen. Of course that's subjective and open to being abused. The frisk part only takes place if the officer feels the suspect may be armed. It's for his own protection. Any stop and frisk event had to be documented by the officers during their paperwork time. The police department needed to measure the effectiveness of the policy to see if it was worth the effort and risk. I believe that to be a reasonable approach.
From what I read, one controversial aspect was that there could be a great disparity in the number of reports generated by the officers. Some had quite a few and some almost none. The police unions complained that officers could feel pressured into filling quotas and that not having enough paperwork could affect their reviews. That's one reason the policy was under internal scrutiny as well as media scrutiny. As for black persons being stopped more often than white persons, we get to decide whether or not it was color or the area involved that was the largest factor. If black persons were singled out in predominantly white communities or areas of the city, that's one thing...again, it would need to be high crime areas. If the majority of the population in the targeted areas were African-American, there should be no reason to dispute the math.