Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Do you feel that stop-and-frisk is necessary? Is it hurting the public more than helping them? Why? If hurting, what would be a more effective method to achieve results?

I think that stop-and-frisk is necessary but there is a border line or a certain extent that I believe is violating personal rights. I think that NYPD is building a worse reputation through these stops then they are gaining a better reputation through the occasional arrests. I think that stop-and-frisk should be conducted professionally if done so and not shouldn't include threats and physical engagement unless under defense. A better way of conducting these could be just checking in where they are going and why they are at this suspicious location instead of physically abusing them.

I think that it is absolutely unnecessary and that it is harming citizens far more than it is helping them. If the NYPD wanted to really keep the streets safe and keep crime away, they would patrol and only act when needed. Instead they are targeting minorities and meeting quotas set by their supervisors. They make these arrests and harass innocent people in order to meet goals that shouldn't be there in the first place. They should take the policy away completely, and simply patrol the streets. They should also be required to always wear a recording device of some kind so that any abuse of their power is seen.