Stop And Frisk Analysis

Wilson stated that ''The truth is that often where there are esthetic criteria of excellence, there are also sociological criteria that have traditionally excluded blacks.'' He then continued on to say ''... raise the standards and remove the sociological consideration of race as privilege, and we will meet you at the crossroads, in equal numbers, prepared to do the work of extending and developing the common ground of the American theater.'' Through these powerful words Wilson is saying that in order to reflect American culture in the theater, the history of African American’s must be reflected. There have always been systems in place that have excluded African Americans and white Americans will never understand the way that sense of oppression felt. White Americans will never understand how it feels to be enslaved, be powerless in protecting your family, and being sold off as property, as Eliza Harris from Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and millions of other slaves felt. Photographing the “American Negro” by Shawn Michelle Smith presented the idea that white Americans have tried to take away the histories of other races in America. People have always turned against embracing the histories of the African Americans because they were seen as alien to their owners. Their different skin tone separated them from the white Americans who thought of them as uncivilized before they were brought to work for them. Ultimately Wilson calls for Black Theaters to prevent the culture of the

The stop and frisk policy came about many years ago. The stop and frisk is used for protection for the officer or officers. An officer can stop a suspect and frisk him/her for weapons, contraband or any other items if the officer feels any other suspicion. A Stop and Frisk do not require a warrant. This practice is very common now days, but similar procedures to stop and frisk policy started in the 1980s. According to Clark (2015), the earliest origins of stop and frisk were used in 1994 by Street Crime Unit to prevent the carrying of illegal guns in well-known hot spots and areas with high crime rates. The crime rates decreased over time, but it caused another issue in the communities.

Every day people walk down the street of New York wondering if they are going to be stopped. Paul Butler a law professor at Georgetown University and a former United States Department of Justice prosecutor says that “the problem with stop and frisk is not only that it makes the citizens of New York less free, it also makes them less safe” (Butler, 2012). This brings the feeling of the people in New York to light, as they feel like they are less than others and less free with the ability to them being stopped and searched whenever an officer has a suspicion. Not all officers have the right sense in mind when it comes to their suspicion about someone, because “according to the analysis, just 1.5% of all stop-and-frisk arrests resulted in a jail or prison sentence. Just one in 50 stop-and-frisk arrests, 0.1%, led to a conviction for a violent crime or possession of a weapon. Close to half of all stop-and-frisk arrests did not result in a conviction” (Lee, 2013). The percentages show that officers’ suspicions aren’t always correct and that they may use their own stereotype about someone when they stop and frisk. This policy is ineffective because they don’t have a 100 percent on catching people, and many times officers’ own opinions on someone gets in the way. This policy is kept around for the little percentage it has worked and to give the officers an option to do a stop and frisk if they feel necessary. If this policy

In the 1990s, the growth of violent crime reached its all-time high. In reply to the number of high murder rates in 1990, the New York City Police Department realized that whatever they are doing to reduce violent was not working. The local news reported that New Yorkers were afraid to wear their jewelry in public. Some New Yorkers reported that they sprint to the subway exit to avoid victimization when the door opened. The New York City Police Department decided to implement a practice of Stop, Question, and Frisk. This law became to know as the Stop -and- Frisk (Bellin, 2014). Stop-and Frisk” was a method that was implemented by the New York City Police Department in which an officer stops a pedestrian and asked them a question, and then frisks them for any weapon or contraband (Rengifo & Slocum, 2016). By the last 1990, Stop-and Frisk became a common practice implemented by New York City Police Department (Bellin, 2014).

Stop and Frisk is the practice by which a police initiates a stop of an individual on the street based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Stop and Frisk policy was adopted from laws in a number of different courts in America. Under Stop and Frisk, a police officer has the power to stop, question, and frisk suspects with reason. These questions may determine whether the suspected person should be detained and investigated.

Eighty-seven percent of stops in 2012, were Black and Hispanic people. Compare that percentage to the amount of water on Earth, only seventy percent. Now, imagine eighty-seven percent water covering the Earth. That would make the world unbalanced and difficult to live in, which is how life is for the minorities impacted by Stop and Frisk. One of the most debated and controversial topics in New York City is the Stop and Frisk policy, and the impact it has on police, Latinos, and African Americans. Stop and Frisk fails to promote justice and equitable society because it creates a society where one group is lesser than another. The Stop and Frisk policy was created in Ohio, 1968, because of the a Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio (US Courts).

Imagine innocently walking down the street in a city you’ve lived in your whole life, when all of a sudden you hear the dreaded “woop woop” and see those flashing red and blue lights. The police. They interrogate you, ask your whereabouts, and finally, they “frisk” you. Of course, they find nothing; they rarely do when they search people. Although it’s wrong and demoralizing, you know it’s something you’ll have to get used to as an African American living in New York City.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the pros and cons of the Stop and Frisk policy in New York. This paper covers a short history of Stop and Frisk. It also will address the progression of the policy throughout the years. Furthermore, it will relate the topic to the management, gender, and race class focusing in on how the unconscious bias plays a role in how the police choose who to stop. The paper also includes some statistics of Stop and Frisk encounters. It will conclude with the group opinion of the Stop and Frisk policy.

The stop, question, and frisk policy was implemented in the NYPD in an effort to make the city a safer place. With weapons becoming more easily accessible than ever, they are becoming more of a problem, and officers and the general public are now in more danger than ever of being killed by a firearm, knife, or a weapon. Although the policy is intended to prevent harm and protect society, it has been under major scrutiny in not only the past few years, but also the past few decades as well. Due to the fact that minorities are believed to be the main target of this policing tactic, many people have argued it is inherently corrupt should be abolished. On the other hand, it has shown to provide some positive outcomes and as a result, it is a necessary

The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Department’s own reports on its stop and frisk activity confirm what many people in communities of color across the city have long known: The police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast majority are black and Latino. In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times. 605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent). 350,743 were black (53 percent). 223,740

The law of stop and frisk gives police the constitutional right for a brief and limited search of the outer garments for weapons only if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. My thesis statement is that The enforcement of this law is unfair to black and latino males who seem to make up 90 percent of those stopped by police. I intend to prove this thesis statement by using data, website information, and law books to show that this law is ineffective and only used to racially profile innocent people. Another thing about the stop and frisk this police investigation tool is making people feel like prisoners in their own communities. They can’t come and go as they please without fear about getting

The practice of ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ in New York, by the federal courts, has been found unconstitutional not because of the actual process once the person was stopped, but because of the way they were targeting based on race with little to no reason. When you look at the racial breakdown of Stop-and-Frisk targets in New York from 2003-2015, consistently fifty percent (50%) or more were black (Bump) yet blacks make up twenty-five percent (25%) of the population (Matthews). White was not even a category as it was comprised in ‘other’. Latino was the only other category which comprised about twenty-five percent (25%) (Bump). Blacks make up twenty-five percent (25%) of the population in New York. In Pittsburgh, a city similar to New York, it was found that in traffic stops, black men are eight percent (8%) more likely to be frisked and the grounds on being frisked are if the officer thinks there maybe be criminal activity (Ryan). Again, it is a hundred percent (100%) up to the officer whether a frisk in this case happens. The problem is how objective are police officers when stopping African Americans, specifically men, if statistically speaking they are stopped disproportionately.

In Philadelphia we are exposed to violence, grief and experience things that people in other cities wouldn’t from a young age. With that being said our police force can be more aggressive in certain circumstances especially towards young black men. Prob cause changes on case to case basis, there are many lives that could have been saved if the police had exercised their vow to serve and protect. It seems as if now suspicious activity is being black in a neighborhood where you supposedly “don’t belong”, having a nice car or even something as small as having a hoodie on.

Video two was a new report on the Stop-and-Frisk to determine if it was is a form or racial profiling or proactive policing. The video is debating the pros and cons of the Stop-and-Frisk in New York City. According the video the Commissioner Raymond Kelly says that major crime is down by 25% since he took office in 2002, and he feels that it is due to the availability of the stop-and-frisk tool that officers use over thousands of times a day. The controversy is that out of the thousands of times that it is used a day only 6$ lead to an arrest and only 1.2% of those lead to gun being confiscated. More controversy is that 84% of people stopped are young black men. This is leading to community that does not trust the police, one young man felt

The use of various camera techniques such as canted frames, low-angled, high-angled and close up shots, as well as camera distance, enhances the struggle between the characters. The use of such techniques not only allows the audience to get an extensive insight into the many different characters, but also helps us understand the relationships between them and how all of these factors contribute to the overarching theme of racism in the film. The use of these camera rapid movements