It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As New York police abruptly moved away from the practice of stop-and-frisk toward the end of Kelly's tenure in 2013, the rate of homicide continued to decline as it had previously.
"To say that stop-and-frisk is the reason crime went down is wrong," said Peter Moskos, a former Baltimore police officer who is now a sociologist at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Martin75
Ha, you knew I won the argument regarding the predominately WHITE mass shooters in this country who got their guns legally, so you don't want to play anymore. I get it.
Here's another one you lose. Stop and Frisk did not significantly lower gun violence.
FACT: Guns are found in less than 0.2 percent of stops. That is an unbelievably poor yield rate for such an intrusive, wasteful and humiliating police action.
The stop-and-frisk policy was ineffective because civilians were regularly stopped on inconsequential pretexts and vague justifications, such as that a person was moving furtively. The result was officers wasting their time with civilians who were not criminals, Fagan said
However, the general practice of stopping and frisking civilians is not unconstitutional, and research shows that doing so can help reduce crime — but only as part of a broader, clearly articulated strategy that targets real criminal activity.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
Can we just agree that;
A) Stop and frisk is unconstitutional because it presumes guilt
B) Obama was sucky, divisive president
C) We need to look within our own communities for solutions, not Washington
D) Masons, along with Russia, hacked my liquor supply
Happy New Year.
originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: kaylaluv
I have repeatedly stated "when used correctly ". That is the exact same quote I used before. You just want to argue nonsense.