Stop-and-frisk is a return to pre-1960's law enforcement actions. Do you really think think the country was one vast gulag before Mirandization and all the other criminal-friendly Federal court rulings starting in the 1960's?
You continue to ignore the core issue of my posts, which is incrementalism. I assume it's because you have no response to offer.
I've never claimed that stop-and-frisk equals a "vast gulag", but that violation of civil rights by the government to any degree should be stopped. The courts ruled correctly in this matter, stopping "unreasonable searches and seizures".
You apparently have only two answers to all the disagreement thrown your way: 1) Stop and frisk isn't as draconian as X. (Where X= vast gulag, etc.), and 2) regardless of whether stop-and-frisk is constitutional or not, it reduces crime, so it's OK.
So, to directly answer your apparent claims:
1) The degree of wrong doesn't alter the basic fact of wrong. Because aggravated murder is worse than armed robbery, it does not follow that armed robbery is OK. Because stop-and-frisk is not a "vast gulag", it does NOT follow that stop-and-frisk is OK.
2) This is simply an "ends justify the means" argument, and it's just as wrong in this incarnation. The fact that stop-and-frisk decreases crime does NOT change its basic nature as a violation of the "unreasonable searches and seizures" guarantee of the constitution. It's wrong, and LEOs should NOT be allowed to do it.