Community Board 10 Monthly Meeting Tonight-Voting on Stop and Frisk

Wondering whether anyone present will comment on or discuss the issues raised in the Spectator article below. Or pose any potential solutions.

Since I live in this area, I am qualified to comment that the situation with out-of-control adolescents is quite a bit worse than the article suggests.

WIll the location be at the ACP building at 163 W. 125th or at 215 W. 125th?

The meeting will be at ACP building at 163 W 125th. The 215 W 125th address is where their office is located. If you come, don't bring a camera. They will make you turn it in at security and then you will have to remember to ask for it back when you leave.

I wonder if OWS will be there.

Now criminals know where to go if they don't want to get frisked.

Our American justice system is founded on the principle that "one is innocent until proven guilty." The Stop & Frisk policy is not supported by the facts. Almost 90% of those subjected to it are people of color. In 2009, over half a million people were stopped and minimal weapons/drugs yielded, while great damage to young people of color resulted. Please see this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/opinion/sunday/young-black-and-frisked-by-the-nypd.html
to get a greater understanding of what it would be like to live this way on a daily basis.

Also read the statistics yourself here: http://ccrjustice.org/files/CCR_Stop_and_Frisk_Fact_Sheet.pdf
from the Center for Constitutional Rights.

This is not the way to fight crime. I was at the CB 10 meeting tonight and a resolution was passed to recommend changes to the policy that would do away with stopping people for "furtive movements" and require police to call in to the main precinct for info before unnecessarily harassing possibly innocent people.

Thanks for the update! I wasn't able to attend (my little one was sick), but I was wondering how the meeting went.

I am for the stops in areas experiencing a high level of violence. If these lowlives know that police have the right to stop them at any time, they are less likely to walk round with a gun or knife. as for the race thing... In NYC the areas overrun with extreme violence at the moment are black and hispanic for example east new york, bedford stuyvesant, many parts of the bronx, spanish harlem, harlem in general etc . so if you want to be so politically correct that you turn a blind eye to the problem than fine if it makes you feel better but i prefer reality.

"Politically correct" is an apt designation.
I too prefer reality.

these people against the policy will pat themselves on the back if it becomes illegal and see themselves as champions for minorities yet the only people really thanking them are criminals for allowing them to walk the streets safely with their guns. If you are not doing anything illegal there is no reason for you to take a police stop personally show ID and be on your way. in rare cases where a cop is heavy handed and disrespectful take that up with that individual in the way of filing a complaint, dont blame the policy.

If you support the "Stop and Frisk" policy as it is written, than perhaps you also back the Patriot Act since they are closely related.

Calling me "PC" is not the best way to advance a mature discussion between neighbors, since it is a way of dismissing my reasoned arguments out of hand. I am a Harlem resident too and equally concerned about crime. My motivation has nothing to do with being "PC" or a "champion for minorities." Rather I am a relentless supporter of human rights and don't believe in the compromise of our civil liberties. I don't see other humans as somehow separate from myself and my own concerns, and I think that's where the difference lies in our world views.

The facts:

During the first nine months of 2011, 514,461 New Yorkers were stopped by the police.
451,469 were totally innocent (88 percent)
276,664 were black (54 percent)
157,487 were Latino (31 percent)
46,934 were white (9 percent)

Once again: 451,469 were TOTALLY INNOCENT (88 percent) and 85% were black or Latino.

http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices

I would like to see some demonstrable proof that Stop & Frisk lowers crime. Can you provide it?

By your own accounts, crime is on the rise.

sitting in your apt and googling statistics does not give you an accurate view of what is really going on. for example you say 88 percent were innocent. what this percentage does not take into account is that police officers who have spent a certain amount of time working in an area know who the troublemakers are from prior incidents, prior arrests etc. so if a police officer sees a group of 4 teenagers who have been known for being involved in violent crime in the past and decides to stop and frisk them but in this particular situation does not find anything illegal on them in your world 4 "INNOCENT" teenagers were stopped, in my world thats good policing because it sends the 4 lowlives the message that they are being watched.

the reason for the disparity in numbers of stops of minorities is as i said before the vast majority of violent crime is occurring in minority nyc neighborhoods. in east new york where shootings are common police officers have to use this stop and frisk as a tool to fight crime whereas a cop in the upper east side really has no reason to stop and frisk anyone in general.

Exactly true. We are very appreciative of any increased police presence for precisely that reason.

It is my sense that Hector is from NYC as well.
This is not to be disrespectful to newcomers, not at all. It is simply the case that history gives a person a certain insight.

how can there be statistical evidence proving that it stops crime when the point of stop and frisk is to prevent it from ever happening? if a guy with a violent criminal history knows that it is a bad idea for him to be out there with a gun because at any moment he can be stop and frisked thats a good thing but if he knows he cant be stopped and frisked thats a bad thing.

Hector, has the crime rate decreased since the Stop and Frisk policy was implemented?

i dont know if your familiar with nyc's history but this city was a complete disaster in the 70's 80's and early 90's and stop and frisk was just one of many new tactics enacted by the nypd that helped lower crime to historic levels...

Yes, I am familiar with NYC's history. I am a native New Yorker and grew up here and lived through the 70's, right near Central Park. There is no proof that Stop & Frisk lowered crime from the 70's, 80's and 90's. I don't even think the policy existed then.

Aside from this factor (about whether or not S & F has lowered crime), I don't believe the ends justify the means. If I were stopped and frisked (or thrown to the ground with a gun pointed at my head) for walking down the street, I'd be outraged. For the same reason, I am against the Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants that forces hispanic people to provide proof of citizenship and the Patriot Act which infringes on my civil liberties.

The issue is that what the NYPD is doing is illegal. It's an invasion of privacy and it disregards the constitutional rights of citizens.

If you are against crime, you have to be against ALL crime.

If you are for human rights, you have to be for ALL human rights.

I've been a cop in Harlem for 15 years, and a resident of CB11 for the first 6 of those, and S/Q/F has always been a tool that we've used. Just a couple of points to add. The numbers that Amy are citing are based off NYPD records. After each Stop, Question, OR Frisk (emphasis on the "OR"), a form is completed that details that a stop was made, time/date, pedigree of person stopped (if provided; the subject can refuse), whether the individual was frisked (most aren't), and reason for the stop.

Most of these stops are truly innocuous, and would be a dereliction if they weren't completed. For example: responding to a burglary, shooting, etc, and holding/identifying those on the scene. Once the situation is investigated, those individuals would be released, and a record taken of the Stop. The same for "man with a gun" calls. Someone calls 911 and says the four kids on the corner have a gun; it'd be a crime NOT to investigate. If I'm investigating a burglary pattern, and while patrolling a building I stop a resident, and interview them about any suspicions they might have, and conditions in the building, I'll document that; it shows that I was there, and doing my job. And contrary to the belief of the NYCLU, these stops are not recorded to maintain an illicit database on innocent civilians, but the primary purpose is to document that the officer acted in good faith, and to protect the officer/department/city from liability.

The numbers being bandied about are so wide as to be obfuscatory, as each interaction documented is unique, and does not mean that the individual was thrown against the wall at gunpoint, and his belongings ransacked, solely on the whim of some passing cop, as the opponents of this policy would like to portray. Essentially, S/Q/F is a new term for old, common sense, police work, and the forms completed are just documentation that the officer did his job. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't know, doesn't seem like the cops in my neighborhood are frisking anyone for guns - usually, it's drugs they're looking for, probably marijuana. I've seen cops stop and frisk a kid who was eating a slice of pizza on a bench outside my neighborhood cafe. They were very thorough, going so far as to run their fingers through his slice. They didn't find anything. It never makes me feel safe, it makes me feel like I could be next in line for a stop and frisk - not because I'm guilty of anything but because I happen to be black. Is this because there are no white drug dealers in this city (sarcasm heavily implied)?

amy you misundertood me i never said stop and frisk was used during the 70's 80's and 90's. im saying its a fact that this city was horrible during the 70's 80's and early 90's and stop and frisk was one of many tactics used during the late 90's to now to heavily reduce crime

and saying that stop and frisks involve being thrown to the ground with a gun pointed at your head is ridiculous....

gwhiz. stop and frisk has nothing to do with drugs. a frisk is a pat down to feel for dangerous weapons. if you go into pockets for drugs thats a search not a frisk. a search is illegal and if there are individual cops out there doing that then they have to be reprimanded.

Hector, it's not ridiculous because it happens. Please read the first person account in this recent NY Times article by Nicholas Peart in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/opinion/sunday/young-black-and-frisked-by-the-nypd.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=stop%20and%20frisk&st=cse

Also Stop and Frisk does have to do with searching for drugs. Please see the video link posted under "Media" about how cops were making false allegations about people displaying marijuana, after they searched them and displayed the marijuana themselves. This something that Ray Kelly has just reprimanded the force about.

Here is the link to the investigations mentioned above:
http://harlemworldblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/wnycs-ailsa-chang-win-dupont-award-for-nypd-stop-and-frisks-investigation-video/

Hector, why would cops stop and frisk for guns and knives? If someone is carrying an illegal weapon isn't there a greater chance that said weapon would be used against the officer frisking them? I find it hard to believe that would be actual police procedure - I'd think the officers would make that person drop to the ground and draw their weapons first - as a necessary precaution? You should read the article Amy posted, I read it last week. There's a chance you might open your mind a bit. I'd like to believe that most of the minorities that live uptown are good, honest people and not the hotbed of criminal violent activity that people blithely assume it to be.

Brian, thank you for joining the discussion and adding your perspective as Harlem police officer. I do realize that these situations as reported are not cut and dry -- that we don't know the whole story based on the numbers and media alone. Nevertheless I agree with Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's call for a federal investigation into Stop and Frisk. The stops you describe in your examples in sound legally sound to me. But many articles and witnesses describe otherwise (as in the comment from GWhiz4 above). The key issue is "Reason for stop" which is much too broad. In the policy as written "furtive movements" is a reason that can be checked off on a box. What does that mean? Well, it's not necessary for a cop to specify. My other concern is that Stop and Frisk is creating great hostility and conflict between residents and police. That in itself is not a good situation and does not speak well for the NYPD's community relations.

Just found a good article from last Sept that addresses many of the issues we are talking about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/opinion/the-truth-behind-stop-and-frisk.html

Hector, you are right that Stop and Frisk was enacted in the late 90's. But although crime has declined since then, please note (from the article):
"Judge Scheindlin pointed out, there is no conclusive proof that widespread use of stop-and-frisk itself drove down crime. Crime fell in many cities, including those that did not adopt the approach."

Also people might find this report on the status of the class action suit against the NYPD's Stop & Frisk:

http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/floyd-et-al

The CCR report finds that race is the main factor for stops, even in low crime neighborhoods, black and latino suspects are treated more harshly than whites for the same crimes, etc. Lots of interesting info here and I think the suit is still underway.

Amy your posts regarding making this an intellectual discussion are very naive. Those of us who grew up with criminals know that ending S/A/P would be a dream come true. We know guys who hide their "piece" or drugs for fear of S/A/P. We also know that many murders were averted because a guy had his "piece" stashed and wasn't immediately available when a beef started. I owe my life to the fact that a guy had to go get his "piece". I quickly left the area.
NYC had 2000 murders during the Dinkin's administration before S/A/P. Black men were shooting each other over sneakers. Stringer is just a political hack pandering to some community leaders for higher office. Harlem is for sale by the local politicos for the highest bidder. Look at the lot next to the Apollo. I 've been looking at it for as long as I can remember. Nothing has been done because no one wants to pay the bribe necessary to do any development. Put down your computer and go down to criminal court if your really interested in "human rights" and see the victims of the people you feel are being wronged. Mothers crying for their dead sons and daughters.People with their apts burgalarized. Woman crying after being raped. In the four boroughs of NYC 90% of the VICTIMS ARE BLACK AND HISPANIC. Don't they deserve your ""human rights" as well???? The fact is in life there are no perfect solutions or answers. Perhaps, no offense, but you are too young to realize. Black and Hispanic teenagers are committing these crimes and thats a fact!!!! If the police can save one life with this tool and the criminals are kept a little less dangerous, so be it.
I for one am for the "human rights" for the rest of us.

gwhiz this is not open for discussion it is a FACT that stop and frisk is meant for weapons. a frisk is a pat down to feel for dangerous weapons. a search is actually going into pockets. a search for drugs is illegal.

unless the drugs were already observed in plain view before they went into the pockets.

amy you live in a bubble. i grew up in a very bad neighborhood with criminal friends and as tony williams said it would be a dream for them if stop and frisk was terminated. Continue your fight for nyc criminals they love you...

imagine when dudes like this find out they can no longer be stopped and frisked

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45911161/ns/local_news-new_york_ny/#.TwkvqJj-K5Q

Tony: Thank you, absolutely right, well said.

You make a number of assumptions about me which are untrue, as does Hector. I wish each of you had enough belief in the strength of your arguments that you would not need to resort to this but could address the actual points that I raise.

Its pointless to debate raw data versus "raw" life.
Enjoy your Sunday.

Tony, Hector, BestBrian- thank you so much for your comments, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Amy, protecting civil liberties and human rights for every single person is impossible without compromising somebody else's rights. I have the right to be able to walk down w116th street without the fear of being hit by stray bullet. The right to take the subway to 116th street uptown station without fear of being harrased by the thugs who hang out there . In this neighborhood, my right is being taken away every day. I wish there could be a security camera on every corner and more police up here walking the sidewalks to protect MY civil liberities, my human rights.

I am working to have far more security cameras as well. I am not sure how much their presence would deter crime, but it would certainly remove and/or regulate at least some offenders. Who knows, perhaps CPP would see something, wake up, and begin visiting the neighborhood at night, locating the parents of unsupervised children and holding them accountable.

These children have rights as well - to have a future.

It's not one or the other. There is no "versus." You need to look at everything. Gwhz's account is also "raw" life, as is the NYTimes Opinion piece and many others. These accounts merit consideration as do ALL the factors, including the data, police reports, etc. I may be a solitary voice on this forum (and the only voice with a face), but I am not a solitary voice in the real, RAW world. This is a hugely controversial policy which is why a lawsuit is underway and why Community Board 10 just passed a S/F resolution.

i never said there are 'versus', i am simply looking at everyone's rights here. it is IMPOSSIBLE to protect everyone's civil rights with out compromising someone else's rights.

are you also taking into account the numerous crimes that happen around you that are NOT reported to police? of course not, because it won't be listed in your data. It is RAW life around here to hear gunshots at 3am and not hear or see any police responding because nobody wants to 'snitch'. it's raw life around here to be innocently walking down your street and be hit by a stray bullet that was fired by a teenager in front of a local park or school. i don't care if i am frisked, i will give up some of my rights in order to protect myself and other innocent bystanders caught in the line of fire.

Oh, there is never a dearth of lawsuits. More than a few are absolutely self-serving for their proponents, who hope to build careers (like many politicians) on "landmark" decisions. Or they simply want to feel good about themselves, standing up for the disadvantaged and all.

For example, the lawsuit against the new school on the St. Nicholas Houses property. For some time, we lived in that deeply troubled neighborhood and I know firsthand, therefore, just how ridiculous the arguments against the project are. Hard to know how much the school will accomplish; hard to be sure how privatization will pan out in the end. Putting that aside.

"Our open spaces"? You must be kidding me. On a daily basis, people fill them with garbage and conduct drug deals in "their" open spaces. I will never forget the image of a toddler throwing glass bottles against a wall for the joy of watching them shatter - at 2 PM, mid-afternoon, and surrounded by adults who said nothing. A similar scene may be viewed every day. Too many children in that area are direly in need of the socialization they are not getting at home, and a new school would at least make an effort there.

IN THEORY could such claims be valid ? Sure.
IN FACT are they valid ? Nope.

Blue, I wasn't referring to your post when I said "versus," i was referring to Tony's post above. i hadn't even seen your posts. They came Out of the Blue.

The dominant view here is that racial profiling is fine, even though it's acknowledged by many of you that innocent people suffer from it.

I care about making Harlem safer and reducing crime. I live here too. I also believe in the U.S. Constitution and believe that its principles are not just empty words on paper but need to be upheld and practiced. I am sure you would want the constitution upheld to protect your own rights, should you be wrongly accused or a victim of a crime yourself.

I do think that the argument that actual criminals are less likely to carry guns because of S/F has some truth to it. But I think there are other more targeted ways of minimizing crime that could stop the problem more at its root without sacrificing the constitutional rights of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Please share them with us and the local precinct.
Until then I prefer not to put my life in your unproven ideals but give all the legal tools available to the police.

Yes -- with LEGAL being the key word here. These are not my ideals, but the system on which our country was founded on.

That's right. The system on which our country was founded - in the 18th century ! Perhaps these things need improvement and adjustment.

I don't consider Stop and Frisk to be an "improvement and adjustment" includes racial profiling, I'll take a pass, thanks.

our founding fathers owned slaves maybe we should go back to that too (sarcastic).... that is the same argument for the 2nd amendment "thats how our founding fathers wanted it" meanwhile there was no established police force during that time and there were no automatic weapons that could destroy a city block within seconds. they had muskets that fired one shot at a time during that era so anyone who applies the second amendment to modern times is in denial. this racial proifiling thing keeps getting thrown around as if there are no black and hispanic nypd officers in this city. as i said before if black and hispanic neighborhoods are experiencing a high level of violence then obviously the majority of stops are going to be of blacks and hispanics.

just last night in a span of 1 hour one homicide, one male shot and one male stabbed.

in the bronx

Profiling occurs all the time with all criminal investigative work,racial and otherwise. It is an integral part of solving crime. Its ridiculous to even discuss its absence. I went to the 28th pct when my wife's phone was stolen right out of her hand on St. Nicholas by a few black teens. The detective had me go through 300 mugshots of, you guessed it, black teens. We then drove around the neighborhood looking at guess who? Is that racial profiling or just common sense. If the police ,who everyday deal with criminals know that one of the common denominators of the past criminal behavior is black male young men then its commonsense that they would focus on them instead of white males in suits. The problem in this country is that certain elements are taking advantage of the insecurities brought on by past social inequities.
These elements now want us to suspend common sense in order for them to take advantage of society for their own benefit. I'll repeat "the Emperor has no clothes."

I'll never think its ok for anyone to be treated like a criminal because they didn't happen to be a white man in a suit. End of story. It's my final word on this thread. No need to reply.

@gwhiz -- Think about it historically, back in the 1800's Irish folk were targeted by police, why? because all the crime was happening in their neighborhoods, 5 points, lower east side, etc- Jump ahead to the turn of the century, Italians were targeted, why? because all of the crime was happening in their neighborhoods - lower east side, east harlem etc. Then the chinese were targeted, why? because all the crime was happening in Chinatown.

Racial profiling IS NOT NEW, and it is required in investigating crimes. If I am mugged by an asian man in his 60s, am I to tell the police, "sorry, officer, I don't want to racially profile here, so all I'm going to tell you is that he has light skin and grey hair (we don't want to age discriminate either..).

My old italian neighbor tells stories about walking around east harlem in the 1950's as a teen when it was an all italian neighborhood, and officers pulling him aside to question him about recent robberies, crimes, etc. he said it was common and happened to all the young boys in the area.

I have seen white people being pulled over in their cars in the outer boroughs and on long island for 'random' stops because a white person has committed a crime and the cops are stopping drivers who fit the description.

Thank you for the history lesson. Unfortunately since knowledge and education aren't a high priority in large segments of our society many people think their experiences are unique to them alone. Unfortunately reading has not become fundamental.

Spent the holidays in Acapulco and visited an upscale residential neighborhood near the beach. There were a couple of young men standing on the corner that I had seen earlier washing cars parked on the street to make some money.
We had asked them to watch our car while we went to the beach. When we got back they were finishing up it appeared when the police rolled up with automatic weapons and asked what they were doing. They said nothing they were waiting for a ride I think. The police then asked if they could pat and search their pockets. Of course they complied. After finding nothing the police politely left.
I asked my friend what happened and he said young men sell drugs on the street. Sound familiar? Profiling involves a physical description not an iindictment
of a culture or group. Political correctness has become an excuse for a lack of intelligent thought.

Thanks Gwhiz4, for the clarity and sanity of your voice. As we both know, what we are saying is being skewed. Giving a specific description of a perpetrator which includes that person's race is not racial profiling and is obviously not the issue we are discussing. One moment we are dismissed as "intellectual," the next, we are displaying "a lack of intelligent thought" and again labelled as "PC." All I can say is I hope a a neutral judge and court of law is handling these matters.

Wasn't it Ben Franklin that said, "Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"? Don't argue with the man and remember, freedom isn't free. If you've got a social problem outside your door, find a solution that doesn't include sacrificing our civil rights. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

Don't see how that abstract comment is relevant to this specific problem as no one has suggested all teens ,males or blacks should be frisked. But perhaps dont use such a hypocritical example about freedom from a man who owned slaves.

But, Tony, if anyone of us is stopped and frisked, then aren't all of us subject to the same treatment? As for Franklin owning slaves, I won't apologize for that. Of course it was wrong then as it is today. And from any perspective, also hypocritical. Apologies.

A society has to have tools to protect itself from the anti-social behavior of a minority. One example comes to mind a few years ago in a small town.
A woman was raped but didnt see the attacker for some reason. All the men in the town were asked to give DNA samples. of course if you refused you theoretically implicated yourself. All men submitted a sample and the rapist was caught. Was it right that all men "had" to comply? No, but does a society have the right to impinge on civil rights in the interest of the majority? Its not black and white as the Patriot Act has shown. Every human society draws a line in the sand where they will make their stand. Unfortunately many civilizations have waited to long and lost that battle. I don't want to wait and lose ours.

Friend, there's a lot of "minorities" who might take what you're saying the wrong way. Just a warning! But let me address your real point. Sure, they found the rapist by forcing all of the men in that town to provide a DNA sample. And please understand that I can relate to the situation you've cited. My wife is a victim of rape, a brutal rape. She was sodomized, too. We have struggled for years to keep our marriage together. Most couples can't, but I'm proud to say that we are still together. Beyond that, neither me nor my wife would have agreed to have strange men tested for DNA. Why? Because there's more at stake than us and our situation. Civil rights aren't only about me or you or any one situation. It's about the rights of everybody here and now, and also in the future. I would never sacrifice the rights of the innocents now nor in the future to satisfy even my own or my wife's need for justice. Not following the law puts everybody at risk for a lot more than rape. INo, my wife and I will only accept justice that was achieved by adherance to the law. Yes, the law. No one is above the law, not you, not me, not the police, not even the President. You can't break the law to enforce it. I know it's hard to consider emotional issues in a purely rational mind. But my wife and I try to do that everyday. It's all part of being American.

Lastly, please be careful with your use of the term 'minority'. It's a charged term here in the U.S., which I'm sure you're aware of, and could only distract readers from your main point.

The context was self explanatory.
Luckily at this point ,everyone is still entitled to their opinion.
Although it was starting to look like a slippery slope after the beginning of the Iraq War.

BTW what about the rights of other women who would like the rapist caught so they don't become victims? Your decision based on your view of "rights" may put them in jeopardy. Don't you have a greater commitment to your neighbor/society than your ideology?

I had the same thought and completely agree.

My commitment is to the U.S. constitution, not my or anybody's idealogy. But if you think it's acceptable to break the law in order to enforce it, perhaps you should consider living somewhere other than the United States. No insult, it's just that here we live in a society of laws.

You are unfamiliar with the law in the US, so let me share with you the facts.
Stop and frisk has been an effective tool for police since the 1968 case Terry v. Ohio, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it. The court agreed with the police that officers face uncertain and dangerous situations on the streets—circumstances that can potentially threaten both law enforcement officers and the public. For this reason, police officers need a set of flexible responses that allow them to react based on the information they possess. Thus, distinctions should be made between a stop and an arrest (or seizure of a person), and between a frisk and a search.

Under the Terry ruling, a police officer may stop and detain a person based on reasonable suspicion. And, if the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may also frisk him or her for weapons.

I would add that that the Constitution does not provide a body of laws. In its interpretation, it provides the conceptual basis from which laws are then created.

The key word has always been "interpretation." Hence, that legal decision.

Ever person on the face of the earth lives by adherence to one or another ideologies.

Friends:

I'm sure you're both right. I guess I'm just nervous about giving police, or any authority (other than my parents) the right to stop me on a public street and then touch me. Call me crazy, but I thought U.S. citizens have a constitutional right against search and seizure without probable cause. But I'm an idealist. Thanks.

Of course ! I agree. That's why it is important to debate and discuss each and every instance, and what "probable cause" is exactly, in a given situation or set of situations.

The debate is a privilege we have and we should use it.

Awesome!

I think most teens would think you're crazy to give your parents that right.......
Unfortunately most people don't know the law or their rights.

Here is an interesting interview with Michelle Alexander, author of the The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness on DN!. She discusses the effect of Stop-and-Frisk as well as other factors related to this discussion.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/13/on_eve_of_mlk_day_michelle

Another interesting article about a teen who was stopped 4 times in 6 months. All charges were dropped. http://links.visibli.com/share/eQdn4H