For decades, gun violence had been an extreme debated problem in the US. Over the past 200 years almost every day, the United States has more gun deaths from accidental or unintentional. Every time a firearms incident led to a tragic death, American politics and public debates over gun laws took place. However, there the voices of the people against guns were too little compared with the numerous supporters of gun. In fact, with 310 million guns in circulation in the market, the United States is one of the countries most used weapons in the world. One of the concrete actions has been taken to restrict guns and crime is stop and frisk program in New York City. But after several years of implementation, it has faced a lot of opposition from the …show more content…
Therefore, stop and frisk is not an effective and acceptable way to deal with America’s problem with gun violence.
Stop-and-frisk is a crime prevention action that allows a police officer to stop and frisk a pedestrian without probable cause to arrest, if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime (Stop and Frisk). It was first approved by the Supreme Court in 1968 after the case Terry v. Ohio, which was considered as a landmark decision. The purpose was to reduce the number of crimes and limited use of firearms; but after several years of implementation, it has faced so many oppositions from the people, and did not really get the positive results.
First of all, stop and frisk is an act of racism. Stop and Frisk is a great evidence of an ineffective policy which, under the guise of
…show more content…
The problem here arises that the gun itself cannot kill people, but the people who own it to use it as a weapon to kill another person. In addition, not all gun owners are criminals, so the confiscation of guns is not the optimal solution. In the essay “Just Take Away Their Guns”, James Q. Wilson said “There are some 200 million guns in private ownership, about one-third of them handguns. Only about 2 percent of the latter are employed to commit crimes” (Wilson). That means for every 100 people owning guns, only 2 people use it to perform criminal acts. Not all gun owners are criminals, the majority of people own guns for self-defense purpose. Therefore, the most important thing that the government needs to do is to closely manage the buying / selling guns rather than just take them away from people. If a person wants to buy a gun, he or she needs to have a background checked, provide an appropriate reason to buy it. On the other hand, the police should reward to anyone who discover the illegal use of firearms. For the past twelve years, police department data shows that officer made more than five million stop, but the number of illegal guns were found only 0.02 percent (Badger). Also, shootings aren’t decreasing by nearly enough to justify the increase in stops and frisks. From 2002, shootings in New York City have only decreased by 3.9% (Policy
Stop and Frisk is a practice that was put into play by which a police officer initiates a stop of an individual on the street supposedly based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity “Stop and frisk” and other discriminatory policing practices have spiraled out of control.
...0 stops, another ostensible reason for supporting stop frisks. This ineffective program continues to consume police time, tax payer dollars and leave minority youth their communities feeling oppressed by an agent of government that formerly was held in high esteem.
Stop and Frisk is a procedure put into use by the New York Police Department that allows an officer to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they consider her or him to be. The NYPD don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. Officers solely need to regard you as “suspicious” to violate your fourth amendment rights without consequences. Since its Beginning, New York City’s stop and frisk program has brought in much controversy originating from the excessive rate of arrest. While the argument that Stop and Frisk violates an individual’s fourth amendment rights of protection from unreasonable search and seizure could definitely be said, that argument it’s similar to the argument of discrimination. An unfair number of Hispanics and
While the stop and frisk program ultimately seems like a great idea and that it will help residents of New York City feel safer while on the streets, there has been much controversy with this program. The issue of racial profiling is largely discussed when talking about NYPD’s stop and frisk program. Besides police officers targeting lower income neighborhoods, more stops are of African Americans or Latinos than of whites. These stops often end up with a higher arrest rate. Of the 685,784 stopped last year, 92% were male and 87% were African American or Latino (Devereaux, 2012).
One of the biggest reason stop-and-frisk should be abolished is in hopes to decrease such blatant racial profiling that has been going on under the name of “stop-and-frisk”. In 2007, 55% of the people stopped in New York were blacks and 30% were Hispanic (“Update: Crime and Race”). When checked again in 2011 a total of 685,000 people were stopped by the police of that 685,000, 52.9% were African Americans, 33.7% were Latino, and 9.3% were white (“Racial Profiling”). There is a story of an innocent victim of the stop-and-frisk policy, a man by the name of Robert Taylor. Police in Torrance stopped the elderly man and claimed he fit the description of a suspect that was linked to a robbery. But there was one simple problem; Taylor is a light complexioned, tall, 60 year-old man and the suspect was believed to be a short, dark complexioned, stocky man in his thirties; nothing like Taylor at all (Hutchinson). His shows that the police do not always stop people based on the right reasons, they tend to stop people based on the color of thei...
Some people believe that extremely tight gun control laws will eliminate crime, but gun control laws only prevent the 'good guys' from obtaining firearms. Criminals will always have ways of getting weapons, whether it be from the black market, cross borders, or illegal street sales. New gun control laws will not stop them. Since the shootings of Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook, the frequency of mass shootings has increased greatly. Gun control is not effective as it has not been shown to actually reduce the number of gun-related crimes. Instead of considering a ban of private firearm possession, and violating individual ownership rights, it may be more practical to consider the option of partially restricting firearm access.
Terry which he claimed that his Fourth Amendment which protects all citizens from unreasonable search without a warrant was violated from the moment the officer searched him. Terry appealed the case to the Supreme Court in 1967. The case came also to be known as the “stop and frisk” case. The reason why the name was given is because the officers are only allowed to frisk suspects not search them. The differences between a pat down and a search is that in a pat down, the officer can only pad the individual for hard items they may have inside their pockets. The pat down is mainly to know if the suspect is carrying any weapon that they can use to harm the officer or any other person. Searching a suspect is a little different because that includes a thorough search like checking what is inside a purse or wallet. During a search, an officer could inspect soft things in the pockets of the individual like a small bag of drugs. During a pat down, the officer is not permitted to inspect soft items inside an individual’s pocket. The case collides with the protection that the Fourth Amendment provides us from unreasonable search with no warrant and the prevention of crimes. In 1968, the Supreme Court affirmed that police officers are allowed to pat and frisk individual without probable cause for an arrest. It expands the authority of the police officer to examine crimes before they happen without reasonable basis for suspicious. This decision ensures
First of all, banning guns will not stop criminals from having them, and there are so many ways that these people can obtain guns. It is pretty plain and simple; if you ban guns from everyone crimes will still be committed. Gun control “…ignores the reality that even if guns disappear, bad people will find ways to do bad things” (Wil...
The situation in which a police officer who is suspicious of an individual detains the person and runs his hands lightly over the suspect 's outer garments to determine if the person is carrying a concealed weapon.One of the most controversial police procedures is the stop and frisk search. This type of limited search occurs when police confront a suspicious person in an effort to prevent a crime from taking place. The police frisk (pat down) the person for weapons and question the person. A stop is different from an arrest. An arrest is a lengthy process in which the suspect is taken to the police station and booked, whereas a stop involves only a temporary interference with a person 's liberty. If the officer uncovers further evidence during the
Crime rate in the United States has been at an all-time high in the past few years. According to the Mass Shooting Tracker, there have been 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870. According to the gun violence archive, 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, and 26,819 people were injured. As you can see, 2015 was a big year with gun violence in the United States and since then nothing has changed, to this day we are still seeing these statistics for death by guns in the United States. Instead of the government focusing on gun control laws, I believe that they should look at different alternatives. Some of these alternatives could be to register citizens with aggressive mental disabilities and emotional instabilities and increase research for effective treatments and cures because in most of these cases the shooters have been found to have a mental disability. We can also abolish gun-free zones apart from schools, banks, mass transit hubs, hospitals, and government buildings so that concealed carry is legal in these zones. The government can enforce stricter punishments for crimes committed with a deadly weapon and more laws protecting citizens who are forced to use a firearm in self-defense. So, in the case of a civilian using
Ultimately, it is a person’s choice to use firearms to commit violent crimes. So criminals should be controlled, not the guns which they share with millions of law-abiding citizens. Gun control supporters claim that gun control lowers crime rate. We as people need to take a stand and fight for our Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Gun control advocates need to realize that passing laws that honest gun owners will not obey is a self-defeating strategy. Gun owners are not about to surrender their liberties or their right to bear arms. The Federal Govement of the United States should not be able to take away the right of law-abiding citizens to own a gun.
The Stop and Frisk program, set by Terry vs. Ohio, is presently executed by the New York Police Department and it grant police officers the ability to stop a person, ask them question and frisk if necessary. The ruling has been a NYPD instrument for a long time. However, recently it has produced a lot of controversy regarding the exasperating rate in which minorities, who regularly fell under assault and irritated by the police. The Stop, Question and Frisk ruling should be implemented correctly by following Terry’s vs. Ohio guidelines which include: reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed, identify himself as a police officer, and make reasonable inquires.
The stop and frisk policy is a policy in which law enforcement officers stop and asks questions and frisk people they feel are suspect, and I feel that it is wrong because it targets too many innocent people and takes the focus off real criminals. They do this even if the person has done nothing wrong....
Every day some news related to gun violence are being heard all over the world. Shooting in driveway, public places, schools, homicide and suicide are some of different types of gun violence. Shooting on people and killing them is a big issue in the world and different comments are provided about that. One of the most important of them is about gun control laws. Stingl (2013) says “The term gun control as it is used in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.” According to this idea gun control laws should be stricter and people should not be able to have access to guns easily. However, there are many other people who believe this idea is not a good solution and never help. This essay will demonstrate for and against views about the topic. People who agree with this idea consider: firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence and gun control means crime control. Secondly, some research shows people with gun are more at risks of getting shot. Thirdly, guns can always be misused by their owners and finally, stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make community safe. While opponents say first of all, guns are necessary for people safety and protection. Secondly, guns are not the only tools for killing and violence; there are other weapons too and finally, gun ownership is human rights.
The police initiated 49% of these incidents. In this report by Langton & Durose, 2013, 25% of those who were stopped on the street, indicated that the behavior of the police was inappropriate. The report also brought out the fact that the percentage of people who file a complaint if they feel the police have not behaved properly was less than 5%. The report also examines the racial disparity in the number of drivers stopped by traffic. It was discovered that there were 13% more black drivers stopped that their white counterparts. Concerning the public’s perception of the behavior of the police during the stop and frisk incidences more blacks than whites reported that the officers displayed inappropriate behavior. Most of the drivers stopped by an officer of a different race believed that the search was illegitimate. The authors of the report also discovered that the rate of ticketing was higher in black drivers compared to the