The whole idea of limiting stop-and-frisk comes from the notion that it is unconstitutional. People believe that police officers are targeting suspects based on unjustifiable suspicions, which leads to the idea of racial profiling. Opponents to stop-and-frisk argue that furtive movements cannot be justification alone for stopping and questioning someone. But if that is seen as unconstitutional, then an unfair and biased judge should also be determined unconstitutional.

Before reading this article, I heard much criticism from people that Judge Shira Scheindlin was running an unfair trial, and had her verdict made before the trail even started. The Constitution allows citizens the right to a fair trial, and Scheindlin was unconstitutional in Floyd v. City of New York, as well as previous trials. I agree with her statement when she kept telling the defense to stop talking about the effectiveness of the policy, because a policy can be very effective but if it is unconstitutional then it doesn’t matter how good it works. She just needs to follow her own statements and stay fair and constitutional in her trials.

Her past record shows that there is some type of resentment towards police officers, and I think that skews the truth of the situation. Of course no one will no the reality of the situation, except the people present, but when you have a cop arresting the leader of the Latin Kings I think his actions are justifiable. I know that every situation is not perfect, and some police officers have it in their mind that they want to arrest someone, even if they are completely innocent. But that obviously does not happen enough if the statistics show such a small amount of arrests. There still should not be any unjustifiable arrests, but the decisions by Scheindlin to be anti-public safety and authorities can be even more detrimental to New Yorkers’ safety.

Now that doesn’t mean stop-and-frisk is the sole reason crime and murders have decreased exponentially. Obviously there needs to be some sort of warranted search if there is a feeling a threat, but it should not be done so often just to complete quotas and show good statistics. And if the NYPD is decreasing stop-and-frisks greatly and creating more detailed reports during a court trial on the issue, it only further proves that many of the stops are unnecessary.

One thing I did not agree with in the article was the way it defined stop-and-frisks. “Police officers may arrest a suspect only if they have probable cause to believe that he committed a crime.” I do not think stop-and-frisks simply allow police officers to arrest suspects if they believe to have committed a crime. Suspects need to have a weapon or some illegal item on them to warrant an arrest. The occurrences when police officers arrest them without any reason show that there are faults in the system, which prove the practice to be somewhat unconstitutional. But the only way to really fix the system is by having a fair trial and sticking to the constitutional rights of all parties.

Does Scheindlin have some sort of vendetta against police officers that every time there is a trial she is in favor of the opposing side?

The whole idea of limiting stop-and-frisk comes from the notion that it is unconstitutional. People believe that police officers are targeting suspects based on unjustifiable suspicions, which leads to the idea of racial profiling. Opponents to stop-and-frisk argue that furtive movements cannot be justification alone for stopping and questioning someone. But if that is seen as unconstitutional, then an unfair and biased judge should also be determined unconstitutional.

Before reading this article, I heard much criticism from people that Judge Shira Scheindlin was running an unfair trial, and had her verdict made before the trail even started. The Constitution allows citizens the right to a fair trial, and Scheindlin was unconstitutional in Floyd v. City of New York, as well as previous trials. I agree with her statement when she kept telling the defense to stop talking about the effectiveness of the policy, because a policy can be very effective but if it is unconstitutional then it doesn’t matter how good it works. She just needs to follow her own statements and stay fair and constitutional in her trials.

Her past record shows that there is some type of resentment towards police officers, and I think that skews the truth of the situation. Of course no one will no the reality of the situation, except the people present, but when you have a cop arresting the leader of the Latin Kings I think his actions are justifiable. I know that every situation is not perfect, and some police officers have it in their mind that they want to arrest someone, even if they are completely innocent. But that obviously does not happen enough if the statistics show such a small amount of arrests. There still should not be any unjustifiable arrests, but the decisions by Scheindlin to be anti-public safety and authorities can be even more detrimental to New Yorkers’ safety.

Now that doesn’t mean stop-and-frisk is the sole reason crime and murders have decreased exponentially. Obviously there needs to be some sort of warranted search if there is a feeling a threat, but it should not be done so often just to complete quotas and show good statistics. And if the NYPD is decreasing stop-and-frisks greatly and creating more detailed reports during a court trial on the issue, it only further proves that many of the stops are unnecessary.

One thing I did not agree with in the article was the way it defined stop-and-frisks. “Police officers may arrest a suspect only if they have probable cause to believe that he committed a crime.” I do not think stop-and-frisks simply allow police officers to arrest suspects if they believe to have committed a crime. Suspects need to have a weapon or some illegal item on them to warrant an arrest. The occurrences when police officers arrest them without any reason show that there are faults in the system, which prove the practice to be somewhat unconstitutional. But the only way to really fix the system is by having a fair trial and sticking to the constitutional rights of all parties.

Does Scheindlin have some sort of vendetta against police officers that every time there is a trial she is in favor of the opposing side?

As the granddaughter of a retired New York City cop, who was stationed in Harlem in the late hours of the night, I have heard many stories of the types of people my grandfather would encounter on the job; young men attacking him with guns or knives, women asking him to walk them home because they felt they were in danger, and there were much worse incidents he would tell me he experienced. It’s stories like those that make me realize why stop-and-frisk was put into place. I know that many opponents of the law argue that police officers are rude and disrespectful to the citizens they are stopping-and-frisking. But I know from my grandfather that he was a good-natured person who was always looking out for the best for society.

Now that does not mean my grandpa was perfect, and he has also told me stories of some bad officers who were corrupt in their actions, but I know his actions were not out of vendetta or hatred of any person. He was harsh to the criminals he was arresting because they were causing harm to innocent New Yorkers. Police officers are put in place to keep citizens safe, and stop-and-frisk is one of those initiatives taken that is supposed to help.

But stop-and-frisk can easily become corrupt and police officers can abuse the power of the system, which is happening right now in New York. The statistics show that blacks and Hispanics have been stopped exponentially more than whites and other races, and according to The New York Times 83 percent of blacks and Hispanics were stopped yet their demographics make up only slightly more than 50 percent of the city’s residents. The tactics of stop-and-frisk has caused racial profiling and an atmosphere of fear for potential targets of the practice. There is a difference between being suspicious because you have something to hide and walking on the sidewalk, worrying that the cops will stop you just because you are black or Hispanic.

I know not every police officer practices stop-and-frisk in a corrupt way, just as I think my grandfather would try his best to be as fair and honest in his tactics to stop a suspicious person. But the NYPD has made ridiculous quotas for police officers to fulfill each month for stop-and-frisk. Those extreme pressures have influenced officers to stop more people, particularly blacks and Hispanics as the statistics show, and that also causes them to feel more powerful. They then abuse this power to stop innocent bystanders, who might act defensive just for the fact that they have done nothing wrong and are being targeted.

Now I’m not trying to make generalizations and say that this is only a problem for blacks and Hispanics, but I can say that I have never been stopped. There have been times I was going on subways, carrying large bags or boxes, and police officers would be in the station in front of a table to search in people’s belongings. I have gone up to the table and asked if they needed to search through my belongings and they have always told me I was fine. But then I would see a black man walk towards the subway carrying a large bag and they would stop him. I have seen, first-hand, police officers determine if someone was suspicious based on their race. If I had the mind of a criminal, I would notice the actions of police officers and have a young white girl carry a bomb or a gun because they are less likely to be stopped, even if they are showing signs of suspicion.

People make the excuse that there are higher crime statistics for the black and Hispanic demographic, and while it is true that should not be the sole or primary reason why the statistics for stop-and-frisk for those races are so high. There needs to be more transparency in the system of stop-and-frisk, so that New Yorkers can understand why so many blacks and Hispanics are being targeted and also to see the necessity of stop-and-frisk. I want to feel safe living in the city, but I also want to know that our public authorities are not abusing the system. I do not think the city would be better off without the policy, but there needs to be more control of the practice by city officials.

I think the question that best addresses this issue is, how necessary is stop-and-frisk to the safety of New Yorkers?