Significance

Most Americans have heard news stories of stop and frisk

procedures, but most are also unaware about the toll this
takes on the lives of its victims.
Vesely-Flad 14
/Rima Vesely-Flad is a professor of Religious Studies and the director of Peace and
Justice Studies at Warren Wilson College. She holds a Ph.D. in Social Ethics from
Union Theological Seminary and is the Founder and former Director and Chairman of
the Board of the Interfaith Coalition of Advocates for Reentry and Employment
("ICARE"). THE LAW AS VIOLENCE: ESSAY: NEW YORK CITY UNDER SIEGE: THE
MORAL POLITICS OF POLICING PRACTICES, 1993-2013, Fall, 2014, Wake Forest Law
Review, 49 Wake Forest L. Rev. 889, Lexis Nexis, spark/
It is against the law in every jurisdiction in the country for police departments to institute quotas on actions such as stop and frisk. n41 However, NYPD
officers are required to meet "productivity measures" with performance indicated by the number of UF-250 forms they fill out after conducting a stop and
frisk. n42 These productivity measures function as what one officer called a "highly developed" system that mandates numerical quotas for arrests,
summonses, and stop-and-frisk encounters. n43 Police officers [*896] document stopping people for vague reasons such as "Suspicious Bulge/Object,"
"Furtive Movements," and "Wearing Clothes/Disguises Commonly Used in the Commission of Crime." n44 In 2011, as in previous years, the most common
reason given for stops was Furtive Movement.n45 Such imprecise language can justify what is in reality the practice of racially profiling blacks and Latinos.

For young people in my neighborhood, getting

stopped and frisked is a rite of passage. We expect the police to jump us at any
moment. We know the rules: don't run and don't try to explain, because speaking
up for yourself might get you arrested or worse . And we all feel the same way - degraded,
harassed, violated and criminalized because we're black or Latino . n46 The feelings of violation are
As one resident described the culture of fear that has developed:

pervasive among those who have been stopped and frisked. Joseph "Jazz" Hayden, a community activist who initiated the Campaign to End the New Jim
Crow at the Riverside Church, has argued that the state's rejection of certain populations, along with middle-class flight, has contributed to an extensive
youth culture in which com-munity members are enraged [*897] at their treatment by police officers, but also view it as normal. n47 People interviewed by
the Center for Constitutional Rights described an environment so saturated with a hostile police presence that being stopped and harassed by police has
become integrated into the fabric of daily life experience. n48 Many interviewees explained how they have changed their clothing styles and/or hairstyles,
altered their routes or avoided walking on the street, and made a "habit of carrying around documents such as ID, mail, and pay stubs to provide police

It makes you anxious about just being, walking around and

doing your daily thing while having a bunch of police always there, always present
and stopping people that look like me. They say if you're a young black male, you're
more likely to be stopped. So, it's always this fear that "okay, this cop might stop
me," for no reason, while I'm just sitting there in my neighborhood . n50 Residents of
officers if stopped." n49 One interviewee noted:

disproportionately policed neighborhoods also noted the lack of accountability in incidents of police aggression: In my complex I feel like we're under

To me, NYPD is the biggest gang in New York.

They're worse than any gang, "cause they could get away with stuff. When they're
killing people and they don't get [any] kind of disciplinary action . n51 Indeed, in the experiences of
torment, like we're under like this big gang that's bullying all of us.

some individuals who were stopped and frisked, police officers behaved like the criminals whom they sought to arrest. For example, Derrick Barnicot
reported that as he walked with a bike he had just bought for his girlfriend, an officer stopped him and told him that if they received another stolen bike

I felt endangered. I've been mugged before and it

felt like that." n53 [*898] People who are stopped and frisked have argued that they are being used as a means to an end - to fill quotas - and
brutally so. n54 Another victim of these tactics shared: My jeans were ripped . I had bruises on my face. My
whole face was swollen. I was sent to the precinct for disorderly conduct. I got out two days later. The charges were dismissed. At
central booking, they threw out the charge. No charge. I felt like I couldn't defend myself, didn't know what to
do. No witnesses there to see what was going on . I just wish someone was there to witness it. I felt like no one
would believe me. I couldn't tell anyone. I kept it in till now ... I still am scared. n55 The trauma enacted upon people who
are stopped and frisked can be isolating, as noted above, as well as enraging and humiliating. During
report, they would come after him. n52 Barnicot testified: "

random stops, police officers have been known to sexually harass individuals during stops and frisks. n56 Furthermore, in addition to (literally) warrantless
intimidation and resultant feelings of fear, an arrest can trigger severe consequences even when it does not lead to a conviction. Arrests can create
permanent criminal records that are easily located on the internet by employers, landlords, schools, credit agencies, licensing boards, and banks. n57
While the extent of collateral consequences is hard to quantify, anecdotal evidence illuminates the considerable hardships caused by arrests. For example,
thirty-six-year-old transit worker Daryl George, who had never been arrested, was in the lobby of a Brooklyn building when the police entered and

searched everyone. n58 He had no contraband, but he was arrested alongside someone who did. n59 The charges were dismissed - but not before the
Transit Authority suspended him and he lost five months of pay and benefits. n60 The practice of stopping and frisking black people and other
marginalized individuals has been challenged in the court system [*899] and New York City Council cham-bers. n61 Advocates have protested stop-andfrisk practices in three separate lawsuits filed in federal court that allege racial profiling and violations of constitutional rights. n62 In two of the court
cases, advocates charged the City of New York with breaching constitutional rights by allowing police officers to stop and frisk residents and visitors of
private apartment buildings. n63 In these cases, the plaintiffs alleged that residents, who were simply in the hallways, stairwells, or elevators of their own
buildings, or in front of their buildings, were under siege by police officers. n64 As one person testified: I'll go into the building with the key and they're still
stopping me, asking me what I'm doing in the building ... In the summertime, it's nice outside. Why can't I hang out in front of my building? [The NYPD]
gives you a ticket for trespassing "cause you're sitting on the bench that's in front of your building. I can't sit on the bench in front of my building? Why's
the bench there? n65 The phenomenon of entering buildings and randomly searching residents is amplified in the domain of public housing. A 2010 report
documented that residents of the New York City Housing Authority ("NYCHA") sites receive inordinate attention from the police. n66 Many public housing
residents describe being constantly harassed when coming to and going from their apartments. n67

Stop and frisk leads to more police perceiving people of color

to be criminals.
Garrison, 14 (Arthur H. Garrison, LP.D. - Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Kutztown University,
NYPD Stop and Frisk, Perceptions of Criminals, Race and the Meaning of Terry v Ohio: A Content Analysis of Floyd,
et al. v City of New York February 2014, Rutgers Race & the Law Review, 15 Rutgers Race & L. Rev. 65) //GY
The source of the racial bias and unconstitutional policy, practice, and custom is clear. First, the NYPD patrol officers
are instructed to secure members of UF-250s as a tool of crime suppression and police activity, in which the

the NYPD instructs its officers that since

most of the criminals are black, it makes sense that the right people stopped are
black. The fact that most blacks stopped are not all criminals is of little account . The
district court observed that the "NYPD maintains two different policies related to racial profiling . . . a
written policy that prohibits racial profiling . . . and another , unwritten policy that encourages
officers to focus their reasonable-suspicion-based stops on 'the right people, the
right time, the right location,'" which in fact focuses police stops on the race of
those who they perceive as criminals as a group. n123 The court dedicated eight pages of its opinion
constitutionality of the activity is of no account. Second,

on the issue of "the right people" recounting testimony of Chief Esposito as well as recordings of [*102] a police

Commissioner Kelly
said to him in a meeting in the Governor's office that stops focused on blacks and Hispanics,
"because he wanted to instill fear in them, every time they leave their home, they
could be stopped by the police." n124 As discussed in section two, Commissioner Kelly said as much in
investigator and the testimony of New York State Senator Eric Adams who testified that

his op-ed. n125 As to the credibility of Senator Adams, the court observed that the city "did not object to this out of
court statement," which was pure hearsay, and did not "offer any rebuttal evidence regarding Commissioner Kelly's
statement at this meeting." n126 In context with a speech that Mayor Bloomberg gave to a meeting of the top
NYPD leadership n127 - in which he made clear that stop and frisk was designed to "deter" people from carrying
guns and according to crime statistics blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately the perpetrators and victims of
crime n128 - who the "right people" are is evident. As the court observed When these premises are combined -that the purpose of stop and frisk is to deter people from carrying guns and that blacks and Hispanics are a
disproportionate source of violent crime -- it is only a short leap to the conclusion that blacks and Hispanics should
be targeted for stops in order to deter gun violence, regardless of whether they appear objectively suspicious.
Commissioner Kelly simply made explicit what is readily inferrable from the City's public positions. n129 As such,

the NYPD's policy of targeting "the right people" encourages the

disproportionate stopping of the members of any racial group that is heavily represented in
the NYPD's crime suspect data. This is an indirect form of racial [*103] profiling. In practice, it leads
NYPD officers to stop blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they
were white. There is no question that a person's race, like a person's height or weight, is a permissible
I find that

consideration where a stop is based on a specific description of a suspect. But it is equally clear that it is
impermissible to subject all members of a racially defined group to heightened police enforcement because some
members of that group appear more frequently in criminal complaints. The Equal Protection Clause does not permit
race-based suspicion. n130

Inherency
The Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court case ruled stop and frisk legal
on the basis of reasonable suspicion. This vague language
allows racial and socio-economic bias.
Margerson 14 [Summer 2014. William A. Margeson is a J.D. Candidate,
Georgetown Law, Class of 2015. BRINGING THE GAVEL DOWN ON STOPS AND
FRISKS: THE EQUITABLE REGULATION OF POLICE POWER 51 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 739.
Lexis.]\\IS
One can imagine that when the justices convened to contemplate the constitutional legitimacy of stop and frisks in Terry v. Ohio, they could see, even
smell, the smoke billowing above the city from their chambers. In the seminal case of Terry, the Court held that the right to privacy must yield to concerns
of law and order even before an officer's visceral hunch has ripened into probable cause. n46 For the probable cause requirement, the Terry Court
substituted a new standard permitting officers to conduct a less invasive variety of searches and seizures denominated as "stop[s] and frisk[s]" n47 if they
could "reasonably conclude in light of [their] experience that criminal activity may be afoot." n48 Suspecting that John Terry, a black man, was casing a
store in preparation for an armed robbery, Detective McFadden, a thirty-year veteran of the Cleveland Police, pursued Terry. n49 Down the street,
McFadden approached Terry, who had then joined a huddle with two suspected accomplices. McFadden then "grabbed . . . Terry, spun him around,"
rummaged in the pockets of his coat, and pulled out an incriminating pistol. n50 Reviewing these facts, Chief Justice Earl Warren held that Detective
McFadden had not infringed Terry's Fourth Amendment rights. n51 Although the stop and subsequent frisk did not rise to the level of a seizure and search
that would be subject to the traditional requirement of probable cause, they nonetheless implicated the Fourth Amendment right to be free from the
unreasonable "governmental invasion of . . . personal security." n52 Thence emerged the "reasonable [*746] suspicion" n53 standard, the vagueness and
uncertainty of which is both the ineluctable companion of preemptive policing and the heart of the controversy over stop and frisk tactics. n54 The
procedural protection of the "reasonable suspicion" standard was hammered out only after the Court had concluded that the procedure itself was
constitutional. n55 The Court resolved to uphold Officer McFadden's frisk prior to contemplating the compatibility of investigative stops with the Fourth
Amendment. n56 Warren's initial draft of the opinion was primarily aimed at addressing the propriety of the frisk. n57 Fearful of the ramifications of
upholding the frisk without constraining the circumstances that would justify its use, Justice Brennan, the Court's "liberal champion," entreated Warren to
condition the preliminary stop on probable cause, a point Brennan had raised during the conference of the justices following the argument of the case. n58
When Warren's revisions proved unsatisfactory, Brennan replied in the format of a judicial opinion conveying his refusal to acquiesce to an opinion that
failed to establish any standard at all against which to measure the constitutional legitimacy of the stop. n59 Brennan turned to the text of the
Constitution, urging Warren to anchor the standard in the language of the Fourth Amendment forbidding "unreasonable searches." n60 Although Brennan
had given life to the reasonable suspicion standard, he harbored serious premonitions concerning its potential for abuse. In a private letter to Warren,
Brennan confided, "[i]n [the reasonable suspicion standard] lies the terrible risk that police will conjure up 'suspicious circumstances' and courts will credit
their versions." n61 Terry remains the touchstone for evaluating the constitutionality of stop and frisks today. The stop and frisk procedures
upheld as constitutional in Terry permit an officer (1) to stop an individual based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and (2) to frisk the individual
for the purpose of detecting weapons if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous. n62 In the years since Terry was

judicial construction of "reasonable suspicion" has (1) declared racially

discriminatory stops not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, n63 (2) produced a sociodecided,

economically stacked set of factors [*747] that can be invoked to satisfy the standard, n64 and (3) incorporated so many subjective signifiers of

police officers can effectively stop anyone. n65 "Reasonable suspicion" thus tolerates and
contributes to a racial
skew in the use of stop and frisk

suspicion that

even
and socio-economic
tactics. n66 By insisting
that reasonable suspicion is an objective standard, n67 the Supreme Court has left unregulated the degree to which subjectivity can infiltrate the decision

. As long as an officer can string together a set of observations to

support an inference that the subject might have been engaged in some form of
criminal activity, the officer's subjective motivation in executing the stop is
irrelevant to judicial review of its constitutionality. n68 The upshot is that evidence of racial profiling is practically worthless with respect to
to use stop and frisk tactics

the Fourth Amendment. n69 As Professor David Cole has written, Whren "gives a green light to dishonest police work . . . [by] permit[ting] officers who
lack . . . reasonable suspicion to manufacture a pretextual basis for intervention." n70 Thus, if an officer on patrol is stationed at an intersection, and sees
two pedestrians, one white and one black, illegally jaywalk against the light, the Fourth Amendment is indifferent to whether the officer, motivated by
purpose other than enforcing the law against jaywalking, stops only the black pedestrian out of a subjective belief that black people are more suspicious
than white people. Analogously, an officer is shielded by Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in more frequently frisking black people than white people
because of a subjective impression that black people are more dangerous than white people. To contest a stop or a frisk as unconstitutionally
discriminatory, one must present a Fourteenth Amendment claim, n71 which, as discussed below, is a long shot. Among the relevant circumstances that
can be aggregated into reasonable suspicion are many that create an inherent bias in the inquiry against blacks and Hispanics in New York. Factors of this
type include, for example, "High Crime Area," "Fits Description," and "Changing Direction At Sight of Officer." n72 A stop factor like "Fits Description"
renders young black and Hispanic men more suspicious than young white men, particularly if the description provides only a vague sketch of a suspect,
because young black and Hispanic men are significantly [*748] more likely to be criminal suspects. n73 Interpolating "High Crime Area" into the equation
virtually guarantees that "reasonable suspicion" will attach disproportionately to socio-economically disadvantaged minorities. Empirically, a young
minority is much more likely than a young white person to reside in a "High Crime Area" or to be in the "Proximity" of a crime. n74 As Judge Stephen
Reinhardt wrote, the "High Crime Area" stop factor, "unless properly limited and factually based, can easily serve as a proxy for race or ethnicity." n75
Finally, the stop factor regarding evasive behavior and flight disparately impacts minorities because, for a variety of reasons, some legitimate, minorities
tend to be more distrustful and fearful of police officers and thus more likely to change directions or even take flight at the sight of an officer. n76 Justice
Stevens has expressed sympathy for the view that minorities, in particular, might justifiably believe "that contact with the police can itself be dangerous."
n77 For this population, "unprovoked flight is neither 'aberrant' nor 'abnormal,'" n78 but a logical consequence of their experience. The third
notable ingredient in the illiberal amalgam of stop factors is ambiguity. Quite notoriously, and notwithstanding the Supreme Court's commandment that
the Fourth Amendment inquiry shall be objective, n79 an officer can establish reasonable suspicion by reference to such subjective and ambiguous terms
as "Furtive Movement" and "Suspicious Bulge." n80 Vague terminology which has not been given clear definition by statute, regulation or judicial
precedent and is not understood by the police practically invites action on the forbidden basis of an "inchoate . . . hunch." n81 Despite the sincerest of
convictions, psychological research has revealed, snap decisions, such as those made by police officers in the moments leading up to a Terry stop, are
particularly vulnerable to the corrupting influence of subconscious bias. n82 Because of the prevalence of the stereotype associating non-white males with

criminality, n83 the ambiguity in the reasonable suspicion standard opens the exercise of police procedure to an unregulated and [*749] unobserved bias
that cuts strongly against the Fourth Amendment protections of racial minorities.

Plan text
THEREFORE, WE ADVOCATE THAT THE UNITED STATES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD ABOLISH STOP AND FRISK
POLICIES.

Solvency
Only active legislation can combat the problem of
institutionalized racism. The system is broken, not the people
within the system.
deBoer 14
/25 November 2014, Fredrik deBoer, Purdue University, Rhetoric and Composition
Department, racism is asphalt, racism is a bullet, http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/11,
spark/
You will have already been deluged with analysis about the grand jurys refusal to indict the police officer who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, so Ill
be brief. I guess the essential thing that has to be repeated, again and again, is that this outcome, and so many like it, are the result of a system

Racism is baked right into the foundation of the system .

racist outcomes happen they happen not because of the evil in the hearts of
individuals but because our social, economic, and legal systems have been
designed to deliver those racist outcomes . You can imagine a world where a few things break differently and
functioning the way it is intended to function.
When

Darren Wilson does not kill Michael Brown. If you try really hard, you can imagine a world where a grand jury does indict him. But you cant imagine a
world where police officers arent an immense danger to young black men. You cant imagine a world without Michael Browns, without Darren
Wilsons. Every one of those grand jurors might have hearts of purest gold. The outcome was predetermined precisely because the outcome did not
rely on the individual character of the jurors. We have police aggression against black people because the white moneyed classes of this country have
demanded aggressive policing and the moneyed control our policy. We have police aggression because the War on Drugs provokes it and we
still have a War on Drugs because the War on Drugs puts vast amounts of tax dollars in the hands of police departments and a voracious prison
industrial complex. We have police aggression against black people because centuries of gerrymandering and political manipulation have been
undertaken with the explicit purpose of empowering some people and disenfranchising others. None of that can be solved through having pure hearts

Racism cannot be combated by individuals not

being racist. A pure heart makes no difference. In response to systemic injustice, youve got to
change the systems themselves. Its the only thing that will ever work. How you go
and pure minds. Racism is not a problem of mind.

about doing that, I dont pretend to know. I dont blame well-meaning white people for reaching for emotive responses in a situation of such awful
emotional devastation for our people of color. But the reflexive return to the language of privilege checking, where opposition to racism is

For 30 years or more,

we have opposed racism emotionally rather than structurally, and the
consequences are what they are. I ask you to consider two very different responses to this decision: I dont even know
fundamentally a matter of attitude and ideas, is indicative of why theres been so little progress for so long.

what the first tweet means. I really dont. All I know is that it defines white privilege, first and foremost, as a matter of emotion, as a matter of what
its author thinks and feels. And thats exactly the problem. Another definition of white privilege is being so steeped in the language of emotive politics
that you think the system cares whether you as an individual are terrified or outraged. I promise: whether you as a white person feel outraged,

the system that ensures cyclical state violence against black

men is utterly unconcerned with how you feel. It just doesnt matter. An 18 year old got shot to death
terrified, delighted, or indifferent,

by the cops and nothing has happened. Who fucking cares if you feel outraged rather than afraid? The second tweet, in contrast, says the
opposite: it doesnt matter if you understand your white privilege and it doesnt matter if you tweet that understanding and it doesnt matter if you
retweet others who understand, too. I am not indicting people for not doing something I dont know what they should do and I dont know what
to do myself. Im not exactly shaking the foundations of the system out here, am I. I am not indicting people for failing to actually create change in a
system that has resisted it vociferously for decades. But I am indicting them for refusing to consider the possibility that their emotional and psychic

If we ever are going to figure out how to do

something about all this, it will only come from an acknowledgment that good
white people being good has done nothing to prevent a world where Michael
Brown lay dead in the street for hours. Until that second sentiment is more popular among them than the first, the
relationship to racism simply doesnt matter.

outrage of white people will never be a force for change.

[0:42]Our case is the first step to help reattain the rights taken
away from people of color.
Hutchins 13 [2013. Renee McDonald Hutchins is an Associate Professor of Law
at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. Criminal Justice in
the 21st Century: Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparity in the Criminal Justice
System: STOP TERRY: REASONABLE SUSPICION, RACE, AND A PROPOSAL TO LIMIT
TERRY STOPS 16 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol'y 883. Lexis.]\\IS

Every year, the police stop hundreds of thousands of people nationwide because the
police are suspicious those individuals may be engaged in criminal activity. The
authority to engage in these stops was created by the Supreme Court at a time when the nation
confronted a particular moment of violent racial strife . The Court, perceiving [*917] a need to
give law enforcement greater authority to deal with danger on the streets, loosened the probable cause standard
and allowed officers to impinge upon liberty and privacy interests with a degree of misgiving amounting only to

it was only a
first step toward widespread relaxation of Fourth Amendment standards . In
the years after Terry, justices writing in dissent routinely warned that the Terry doctrine was being
deployed in a way that reduced constitutional protection. Since Terry, data is
increasingly proving that the loosening of constitutional standards is causing substantial
harms to people of color nationwide. The authority to stop and frisk was created in response to
reasonable suspicion. At the time this looser standard was created, the dissent warned that

"the rapidly unfolding and often dangerous situations on city streets" n218 that police officers face. It strains
reason, however, to suggest that a mere possessory offense, where no further wrongdoing is suspected,
necessitates the same immediate and flexible police response that a "rapidly unfolding" imminent robbery might.
Though far more will be needed to fully address the problem of racial disparities in the criminal justice system, this
article joins the existing scholarly discussion to suggest one additional tool that might be used to address the

it is time to "stop" Terry to avoid the

further erosion of rights caused by Terry stops.
racial impact of just one enforcement policy. Put directly,

Advantages
The first advantage is police legitimacy.
Stop-and-frisk leads to massive police corruption.
Charney et al. 10 [September 29, 2010. Darius Charney was the lead counsel of Floyd v. City of New
York. Jesus Gonzalez is a a Community Organizer with Make the Road New York. David Kennedy is a professor
specializing in crime prevention, developed the Operation Ceasefire group violence intervention in Boston, MA and
the High Point Model drug market intervention in High Point, NC. Noel Leader is a former member of the NYPD and
founder of 100 Blacks In Law Enforcement Who Care. Robert Perry is legislative director and is principal lobbyist of
the New York Civil Liberties Union. SUSPECT FITS DESCRIPTION: RESPONSES TO RACIAL PROFILING IN NEW YORK
CITY Panel Discussion. 14 N.Y. City L. Rev. 57. Lexis.]\\IS
NOEL LEADER: n49 My name is Noel Leader. As was stated, I [*66] am a retired sergeant from the New York City
Police Department. I belong to an organization, 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement who Care. n50 We have been very
vocal in our outrage over some of the illegal practices of the New York City Police Department. We are a pro-law
enforcement group. I believe in enforcement. I have locked up many individuals, and I scanned the room, I don't
think anyone in here. We're anti-crime. We're not anti-police, but we are anti so many of the abuses that police
officers do commit. The question was asked, what are some of the harms ?

The greatest harm is that

these illegal stops are illegal; they are against the law. And for police officers
to be violating the law is preposterous. Racial profiling and illegal stops
that violate the Constitution of the United States of America are crimes. n51
And as we said in our personal conversation, you don't stop crime by committing crimes . So
the greatest harm--and I look at the harm that affects not only the community but the police officer, because as
police officers, though we're not attorneys, we get a brief synopsis of what's legal, what's illegal, we know our

So when police
officers know they are violating the law, that corrupts the oath that they
take to protect and serve. And those of you who know anything about
police corruption know that it starts with abuse. That when you can
violate someone's rights and get away with it, and when you do it more
and more, then it only starts there, but it works up to physical abuse and
other types of abuse. And not only are the stops illegal and a crime--we have many instances of cops
department policy, when we should make a stop, when we shouldn't make a stop.

committing crimes, which is ridiculous. But don't forget when a police makes an illegal stop, which progresses to an
illegal search, and then he finds contraband, now what does he have to do? He has to perjure himself, because
when he goes to court, and stands before a district attorney, he's not going to say, "By the way, I conducted an
illegal stop but I came up with these drugs." Good idea, good stop, we got this off the street. No, he's going to lie:
he's going to say, "at the time and place of occurrence, I observed suspects driving or walking down 125th Street,
and by [*67] the way, crack cocaine fell out of his pocket." n52 Or he's going to make up some other story. So now
you have police officers, by the hundreds of thousands, and it's not just these few little eggs, or these few officers
that so many people convince themselves we are talking about. When we talk about 575,000 stops--and don't
forget under Giuliani there was the Street Crimes Unit, and that was 92,000 stops under mean Giuliani n53 --But
under nice Bloomberg, we're up to 575,000, so you tell me the reality. n54 But not only do these officers, in a blue
uniform, nice uniform, uphold the law, they commit so many illegal stops. But once again, then they have to perjure
themselves, because once they come up with contraband, make an arrest, they have to justify the illegal stop. So
now you have this police officer being corrupted, and I had a very difficult time, so many years of my life, time on
the job, wondering how these officers lived with themselves. As I stated, I am pro-law enforcement, anti-criminal
and crime, but that goes for police officers and civilians.

The second advantage is police training.

Stop-and-frisk trains police-in-training to racially label citizens.
Banning the practice will reduce the extent to which police are
forced to discriminate others.
Abu-Hazeem 14 (Aliyah Abu-Hazeem is a contributing writer at the Oberlin
Review, Police Racism Dehumanizes Black Youth,

http://oberlinreview.org/7040/opinions/police-racism-dehumanizes-black-youth/,
December 12, 2014)
The very fact that a Black male cannot
walk down the street on the South Side of Chicago without facing police harassment
and racial profiling via interrogation is indicative of the racism that is continuously
plaguing this nation. The fact that a Black person cannot reach for something in
their pocket without the assumption they are carrying a weapon speaks volumes to
the state of our post-racial society. Even beyond race, which is not to place race aside, we are all human and endowed
We cannot continue to deny that racism is and will continue to be pervasive.

with human rights. Being a human is intrinsic to all of us despite skin color, creed or ethnicity; but still the rights we have as human beings are not equal

Policies like stop-and-frisk that remain embedded within constitutional law

circumvent the rights that we have as humans, enforcing stereotypes and biases
upon individuals to define their proneness to lawbreaking . I wonder: What does a criminal look like? How
can one assess criminality based on appearance? Stop-and-frisk laws are made to dehumanize Black
people. Lets be real: Black people are the individuals getting stopped and frisked by the police. Those are the individuals
that appear to be threatening to the police . Lets examine these individuals that I keep referring to. Instead of
or impartial to us all.

continuing the cycle of generalizing the population that is most affected by violence, which whitewashed society continues to do Im going to lay it all

These Black youths lives are being diminished every day. If

Black men arent losing their lives, they are losing their right to live,
which is analogous in severity. I will not sugarcoat nor meander around the facts. According to FBI crime statistics for
on the table. BLACK YOUNG MEN!

2013, there are, on average, 8,500 Black people murdered each year. That equates to about 21.65 deaths per day. Now, lets look at the murders of Black
people involving police officers. Annually, there are approximately 400 police-related murders; of those 400 murders, 38 percent of them are of Black
people. That is 152 Black people slain by police officers each year. This does not even include the murders that go unreported or swept under the rug,
which we know, regardless of how much we try to deny it, occurs. The numbers show whom those laws protect, and its not the Black minority. These laws
are enforced as a way to persuade the easily deceived white majority that racism is null and void and that the system we live in serves and protects the
lives and rights of all people. Well, all people in this nation were not enslaved. All people in this nation are not overrepresented in prison populations. All
people in this nation do not have to sell drugs to provide for their impoverished families. All people in this nation do not have to rely on government
assistance to survive. All people in this nation do not fear or distrust the police. And all people in this nation do not have to constantly look over their
shoulder because they dont know what minute of any given day could be their last.

Impact Framing
Centuries of oppression have already put an end to the world
of people of color. Fear of nuclear wars and bioterrorism mean
nothing to them because they already face conditions similar
to these catastrophes.
Omolade 84 City College Center for Worker Education in New York City
Barbara-a historian of black women for the past twenty years and an organizer in
both the womens and civil rights/black power movements; Women of Color and the
Nuclear Holocaust; WOMENS STUDIES QUARTERLY, Vol. 12., No. 2, Teaching about
Peace, War, and Women in the Military, Summer, p. 12;
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4004305
in a general
nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union, 25 to 100 million people would be killed. This is
approximately the same number of African people who died between 1492 and 1890 as a result of the
African slave trade to the New World. The same federal report also comments on the destruction of urban housing that would cause massive
shortages after a nuclear war, as well as on the crops that would be lost, causing massive food shortages. Of course, for people of color the
world over, starvation is already a common problem, when, for example, a nations crops are grown for export rather than to feed
its own people. And the housing of people of color throughout the worlds urban areas is already blighted and
inhumane: families live in shacks, shanty towns, or on the streets; even in the urban areas of North America, the
poor may live without heat or running water. For people of color, the world as we knew it
ended centuries ago. Our world, with its own languages, customs and ways, ended.
And we are only now beginning to see with increasing clarity that our task is to reclaim that
world, struggle for it, and rebuild it in our own image. The death culture we live in has
convinced many to be more concerned with death than with life, more willing to
demonstrate for survival at any cost than to struggle for liberty and peace with dignity. Nuclear disarmament becomes a
In April, 1979, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency released a report on the effects of nuclear war that concludes that,

safe issue when it is not linked to the daily and historic issues of racism, to the ways in which people of color continue to be murdered. Acts of war,

nuclear holocausts, and genocide have already been declared on our jobs, our
housing, our schools, our families, and our lands . As women of color, we are warriors, not pacifists. We must fight
as a people on all fronts, or we will continue to die as a people. We have fought in peoples wars in China, in Cuba, in Guinea-Bissau, and in such struggles
as the civil rights movement, the womens movement, and in countless daily encounters with landlords, welfare departments, and schools. These
struggles are not abstractions, but the only means by which we have gained the ability to eat and to provide for the future of our people. We wonder who
will lead the battle for nuclear disarmament with the vigor and clarity that women of color have learned from participating in other struggles. Who will
make the political links among racism, sexism, imperialism, cultural integrity, and nuclear arsenals and housing? Who will stand up?

Therefore, no consequence justifies voting neg because the

securing of intrinsic rights must come before anything else.