Only criminals are arrested. Non-criminals are sent on their way.
>> Non-criminals are sent on their way.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in this country, don’t law-abiding citizens have the right to go about their business without interference from the police?
In other words, why should a law-abiding citizen have to put up with this crap? So that one in FIVE can be taken downtown?
How is this any different from stopping EVERY car on the interstate to find a small percentage of drunks? Or keeping EVERY law abiding citizen from owning an assault rifle because some tiny percentage MIGHT commit a crime with one?
“Guilty until proven innocent” is NOT the basis upon which our civil rights rest, FRiend.
Sorry, the actions of the NYPD run afoul of a SCOTUS decision from the 80’s concerning similar actions by CA LEO’s:
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)
Might want to check that out.
Sorry, but I’m having difficulty understanding your logic on this. It is well established that I have a right to walk down the street without being randomly harassed by the police unless that have solid reason to believe I committed some crime. How can you justify such a blatant disregard for several constitutional rights for every innocent person who is stopped? Do you also support TSA searches? What if they start setting up on the roadsides and stopping people? I’m not trying to be a smart-ass, I really would like to know the logic behind this manner of thinking because it goes against everything we know as freedom.
Non-criminals are sent on their way AFTER being treated like criminals. 80% of the time they’re stopping innocent citizens, that is wrong.
Sorry FRiend, but that has a strong whiff of boot-licking to it .. "We're only going to search your house for {phobia du jour} and if there's nothing there you have nothing to worry about"
If you consider blatant violation of the constitution to be a criminal act, it sounds as though the criminals got away in every one of these frisks.