The Instigator
nyc15982
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
ribbs056
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Public safety in NY

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
nyc15982
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 817 times Debate No: 46560
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

nyc15982

Pro

Many New Yorker's believe that the NYPD's Stop & Frisk tactic is not a good practice, but in reality it reduces crime. If the NYPD stops using this tactic crime will rise again.
ribbs056

Con

The issue is not with the amount of crime that occurs, but with the right of citizens not to have their privacy violated without probable cause. There are many different options that could be used to lower crime rates, but many cannot be instituted without gross violations of a persons liberty. We could do away with requiring police to have a warrant to search our homes, and the crime rate would most likely go down. Just because something has a positive result does not mean that it is right or permissible, and stop and frisk laws are utterly unconstitutional.
Debate Round No. 1
nyc15982

Pro

Sir civilians never know why they are really stopped you guys just want to believe what you want, I work for the department and really care about protecting people , most of the time a crime is committed we stop everyone who fits the description of the perpetrator with the hope of catching him or her. Also we need "reasonable suspicion" to stop someone, with "probable cause" we have enough to make an arrest. If you got robbed for your cell phone with a weapon I bet you'll want us to stop everyone with the description you give us or if a family member gets attacked by a group of teens and is badly injured, you will want us to stop and "250" any group of suspicious teens, which is a form we fill out when we conduct a Stop&Frisk. Not all stops lead to a frisk either. Many times we I.D people when we stop them and ask the victim if him or her fit the description and when they say yes then that's probable cause to make an arrest for assault or whatever crime was committed. About your comment in warrants to enter homes, a stop&frisk has nothing to do with entering someone's home. Criminals have told us themselves that they don't carry firearms and other deadly weapons as much because they are scared to get stopped by us, if not they will carry guns 24/7 and rob people every time they can to make easy money or even shoot any enemies they have, in most cases a fight starts and then people leave to come back armed because they cant risk being caught by us with a firearm if they carried it on a daily basis like if it was a part of an outfit. Listen to a police scanner up and you'll see how often a description of a perpetrator is given for committing a crime.
ribbs056

Con

The problem is that people don't have any reason to be stopped. They have done nothing to arouse the suspicion of cops and therefore they shouldn't legally be able to be stopped unless there is something that actually points to criminal activity. The stop and frisk program does not necessitate that. People can just be stopped no matter what, whether or not they have done anything wrong. You talking about descriptions after a crime has been committed has nothing to with stop and frisk since that has nothing to do with a crime that was ever committed. It has to do with a crime that MIGHT happen. These aren't people who match descriptions for crimes committed. We in the United States have the right to walk down the street without being stopped for no reason.
Debate Round No. 2
nyc15982

Pro

Once again I don't know if you read correctly but when I say description for a crime, the crimes are committed because unfortunately we don't live in heaven. For example: Lady gets robbed at gun point and calls 911 gives the description of a white male, blue jeans, shirt and a hat we are going to stop anyone who fits that description . Victims rarely remember the exact description of the perpetrator so we go by the description they give us. Cops don't make the laws either if it was illegal we will all be behind bars. Stop and frisk isn't only used by the NYPD its used by every police department under the original name of "terry stop". Nyc has 8.3 million people and over 30,000 police officers so of course the number of stops are going to be higher in Nyc. Los Angeles actually has less police officers with a bigger population of citizens and they conducted 875,000 stops and frisk when we only did 540,000. In 2012 729 guns were taken of the streets thanks to stop and frisk. That is 729 saved life's or even thousands since 99% of guns now days shoot multiple bullets, all it takes is one bullet to take a life. In 2013 we dropped the Stop and frisk numbers, shootings and stabbings went up. 2012 lead to 729 guns taken out the streets with stop and frisk, in 2013 police made 50% less stops and that lead to about only 600 guns taken out the streets and shooting victims going up 15%. The numbers don't lie. Thousands of knifes are taken of the streets as well but not all are reported because many cops cut people breaks especially if they are young kids.
ribbs056

Con

I don't disagree with the results of the stop and frisk programs. They may take guns off of the streets and save peoples lives, but they still target racial minorities much more than whites. This is not something that can just be explained away. It is racial profiling, and people do not deserve to be stopped just because of the color of their skin. Even beyond the whole idea of stopping people because of race you shouldn't be able to stop people without having reasonable suspicion that they have committed some sort of crime. The descriptions you keep talking about aren't what stop and frisk is about since these are crimes that have been committed with actual perpetrators to be found. In stop and frisk no crime has been committed and they do not fit the description of any criminal. The racial profiling cannot be justified.
Debate Round No. 3
nyc15982

Pro

Sorry for the delay, busy with work. These are the facts on why Stop and frisk is legal just in case you wasn't aware. In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. In Terry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect had no permit. In this case the officer did not have a warrant nor did he have probable cause. He did suspect that the men were "casing" the store and planning a Robbery. The defendants argued the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause.

The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation.

The Court was also concerned that requiring probable cause for a frisk would put an officer in unwarranted danger during the investigation. The "sole justification" for a frisk, said the Court, is the "protection of the police officer and others nearby." Because of this narrow scope, a frisk must be "reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer." As long as an officer has reasonable suspicion, a stop and frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

You have no idea what its like to be in a cops shoes. We know the area we patrol and know what's going on. So you have no idea what's so ever, its easy to comment when your life is not on the line everyday. Like you read above "safety" is our number one priority, that's the only way a cop can be able to work. Many stops don't lead to frisks if the person answers our questions properly. And about description, its 20% the reason people get stopped and frisked, look at the crime statistics online its all there. The crimes do happen I don't know if you think we live in the clouds with Jesus or with whatever god you believe in. So far this week more then 1000 crime have been committed and last week over 1700 crimes. Check the statistics because crimes do happen sir I don't know where you live but crime is up in New York. Their are many bad people out there, yeah many times we stop innocent people it happens because nothing is perfect. We conducted less stops and crime has gone up this year especially shooting and felony assaults with a weapon. Going back to description, you seem not to understand what I mean but people are robbed, assaulted, raped, and harassed every single day. When they call us they give a description that the 911 operator types up and our dispatcher tells us that description and we stop people fitting the description. Some people say we discriminate and some say we don't. According to crime rates. Black and Hispanic people are approximately 83% of all known crime suspects and approximately 90% of all violent crime suspects were Black and Hispanic people. If it was orange and red people then we will stop those people more, its common sense. I'm a Hispanic person and I didn't have a problem back then when I was a regular citizen. If white people for example are committing 95% of robberies in Park slope Brooklyn who do you want us to stop? A group of white males because they are suspiciously looking inside a bank where people are withdrawing their hard earned money at Atm machines or A black senior citizen waiting for a bus 10 feet a way? Common sense Sir, even a 5th grader will know what to do. Many Nypd cops are starting to not stop people no more with fear of getting a lawsuit for doing their job, if stop and frisk was made illegal that would make the avg police officers job very easy, just respond to the crime, make a report and tell the victim have a nice day. Why try to do a canvas to find the criminals who commits the crimes if people keep complaining about it. Stop and Frisk will never go away, I prefer to get a lawsuit for trying to find a suspect who just shot a little girl SQF(Stop,question and Frisking) people that fit the description of the perp, than respond and just type up a 61 (criminal report) and go from job to job just taking criminal complaints from victims. I also prefer to stop and frisk a person walking in an area high in armed robberies if I believe he has a gun in his waist band because I clearly see a bulge there which is reasonable suspicion, even if it turned out to be an expensive cell phone the person put in his pants because he or she is afraid of it being robbed ill apologize and continue my day. Nothing is perfect in this world that's life, but Stop and frisk works and saves lives its not racist, if street Cats start commiting 90% of violent crimes we will go stop street Cats.
ribbs056

Con

ribbs056 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by mdoll 3 years ago
mdoll
I agree with your debate but some cops abuse their power, they feel that they need to stop and frisk someone just to do it, they usually stop those who haven't done anything. It may help crime rates go down but then it may not because at the end of the day theres going to be crimes no matter what. That just my opinion.
Posted by steven.vitelli 3 years ago
steven.vitelli
Probale cause, and reasonable suspicion are two different things. If I'm a police officer and I establish probable cause by using my five senses, which are sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell I can make an arrest right on the spot. Reasonable suspicion would be a better arugment for racial profiling. Reasonable suspicion is different from probable cause. For example, if I see a buldge poping out near your waist band I have every right to stop and frisk you. I'm protected by the law to do so, but I need to know what I'm looking for before I search you. For example the buldge in your waist band I say a gun, but I find out its a bag of marijuana. I cant charge you for that bag of marijuana because, I was looking for a gun. I feel that stop and frisk is an effictive tactic to stop crime. New York City has a very low crime rate. I'm not saying every police officer out there does'nt abuse this pratice, but its an effective tactic that just has a bad reputation.
Posted by nyc15982 3 years ago
nyc15982
Probable cause is when key evidence is there sir, it doesn't matter if your skin is orange or blue when evidence is present an arrest will be made. Stop and frisk isn't perfect, nothing is but with some good chances it can be improved. In my eyes I don't make actions related to race I don't care what race a person is, everyone will be treated the same by me. Stop and frisk needs to do with reasonable suspicion period.
Posted by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
Why is it that "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" amount to skin tone? Add to that a hoodie, and of course there's going to be an intervention.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
nyc15982ribbs056Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF