That’s how I feel about “Stop and Frisk”. We are well aware of the controversy surrounding the stop and frisk practices in New York City. There have been studies done, articles written, lawsuits filed, and issues debated yet this practice still continues. Other cities, Chicago for example, are now looking to use similar tactics as a means to reduce crime. In a Chicago Tribune article City Treasurer Stephanie D. Neely wrote:
"We have a choice between living with the uncertainty of random gun violence and an occasional random stop that helps the entire community reduce the threat of guns. Would we prefer to continue being held hostage by thugs? Or deal with the inconvenience of stop and frisk?"
We also have New York City Commissioner Ray Kelly asking "Why leaders upset with ‘Stop And Frisk’ aren’t protesting violence instead". He further went on to say:
“The fact of the matter is that 96 percent of shooting victims are people of color, yet the community leaders are not speaking out about this. We’d like to hear from them,”
On Monday, Open Society Foundations published an article entitled "Putting NYPD’s Stop and Frisk on Trial":
Next Monday, the Center for Constitutional Rights will head to trial in our landmark case, Floyd et al. v. the City of New York, challenging the New York City Police Department’s practice of unconstitutional stops and frisks.
......The Floyd trial is the culmination of almost 15 years of work by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the growing movement in New York City to end discriminatory policing practices. It is the first citywide class-action lawsuit challenging the NYPD’s city-wide stop-and-frisk practice to be tried in federal court and the most comprehensive legal challenge to the entire program. Floyd presents one of our best opportunities to hold the NYPD accountable for their continued disregard for New Yorker’s most basic rights and end discriminatory policing once and for all.