I doubt the "stop and frisk" policy targeted the Black community ... but it may have impacted those Black people who sought to peruse neighborhoods and business zones for targets of opportunity.Those people who were up to no good deserved to get stop, frisked and further deterred from their contemplated malicious criminal actions.
BTY: "stop and frisk" (although a misnomer) was approved by the SCOTUS in Terry vs. Ohio, and Clarence Thomas wrote on it more recently by explaining the "misnomer" and the scope of the tactic.
If one wishes to be more enlightened on the topic the case immediately following Terry in the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter is "New York vs. Sibron aka Sibron vs. New York (which is actually two cases combined as the Court often does on its docket) in which the Court explains the holdings in Terry.
But just because the SC "authorizes" the activity doesn't mean agencies must comply with it and can establish their own contrary departmental policies. Under Bloomberg the city adopted "stop and frisk" as a discretionary policy.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/140.50
The distinction (created by the misnomer) is in the statute it authorizes the officer "TO STOP" the suspicious PERSON
and that's not what the SCOTUS authorized! But that was an interpretation applied throughout the country. Thomas later clarified that ... which is a source of criticism of the NYC practice following the unauthorized statute passed by the NY legislature. Originally Posted by LexusLover
(I do not include loitering with intent to beat up some faggot or liberal - that should get a medal)
