Respond to the following statement:
"By flooding hot spots with cops--and ordering them to give out summonses and perform stop-and-frisks the NYPD could prevent more serious crime."
Do you agree or disagree? Explain.
Building an argument: Can an argument be won?
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Officer Serrano's Hidden Camera
Respond to the following statement:
"By flooding hot spots with cops--and ordering them to give out summonses and perform stop-and-frisks the NYPD could prevent more serious crime."
Do you agree or disagree? Explain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm mostly for stop-and-frisk, although there are some bias cases. This is a policy designed for pubic safety, even if it infringes on our amendments. Would one not relinquish a right if it meant bettering the community? Albeit, it is obvious that there may be racial profiling, but if the targeted groups statistics weren't stacked against them, maybe they won't be approached as much.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to stop prejudice against a group/community you must make sure you're group/community improves upon themselves, and stops contributing to the negative stats. Those who have done nothing wrong shouldn't fret...Yeah. -Kirsten Mckoy.
I Agree , But Also Disagree It's Good To Put Cops In High Crime Areas To Just Prevent Things From Happening But I Also Disagree Because Its Harassment To Target A Specific Group Or Race Of People #DollarTeam
ReplyDeleteNo, i disagree with this statement because not only does it give others to move from the hot spot the people who live in these hot spots will protest against the NYPD. I only agree to the point that it's little effective and thus the crime rate in New York dropped and its lowest since the 80s. Stop and frisk could prevent a serious crime but could lead to a larger more serious crime
ReplyDeleteStop and frisk protects the city from major crimes finding a gun on someone can prevent a robbery or a little kid getting shot
ReplyDeleteI disagree that by flooding hot spots with cops and ordering them to give out summonses and perform stop-and-frisks that the NYPD could prevent more serious crime because crime happens in many places at the same time. I feel that to better try and prevent crimes the police officers must be scattered around in different areas. -ariel borden
ReplyDeleteI agree with this quote but I can also acknowledge the other side. Of course, most citizens do not want to go through with these procedures because they feel it unnecessary but they should realize, like the quote states, it "could prevent more serious crime". So, why take the chances of bad things happening when we can prevent it right now? This isn't hurting anybody, it is only further protecting everyone from harm. -Carolyne Sanchez.
ReplyDeleteI'm against the stop and frisk policy. However, if therebis a large amount of police in high crime areas, the crime rate will go down.
ReplyDeleteThere is*
Deleteyes i agree that stop and frisk is needed on the streets to s=a sertain extent but at the same time it does invaids peoples privacy
ReplyDelete- ayana walker
I agree with the QUOTE. Stop and frisk should go down in crime HOT SPOTS. & summons should be given to those blatantly breaking the law without care but those who are just minding their business and not harming or endangering the community should not have to pay useless fines for mediocre actions when they're are far more high rate crimes being committed.
ReplyDeleteI agree flooding hot spots with cops and ordering them to give out summons and perform stop and frisks , the NYPD can indeed prevent serious crime . Because there are so many people at a hot spot , cops being there will keep people on their toes and have them second guess doing anything bad. It can help cut down any chances of people commiting crimes. It also benifits the community and protects them.
ReplyDeletei agree and disgree . i agree because it will reduce crime rates at the hot spots but i also disagree because certain races might be targeted which would be unfair
ReplyDeleteScott Ramnarine
Deletei disagree with stop and frisk because it seems more like a racial profile then a safety precaution, because they only look for a certain race and judge them on how they look.
ReplyDeleteShaun P. Singh
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with the above statement. According to the article, the summonses that they give out are only used to make the commanding officers look good. To give out these 250s, officers would usually give them out peoople guilty of minor things like littering or blocking pedestrian traffic. The stop-and-frisk method is by far the most inefficient way of fighting crime. As I mentioned before, a better way would be to just install more cameras on the streets or just stationing police officers in more areas in destitute parts of town Stop-and-frisk just allows for police officers to abuse power and the end result is innocent people getting hassled and commanding officers getting commendations they don't deserve
I agree and disagree with the stop and frisk because it helps prevents crimes from happening by stopping someone that might consealing a weapon they might use to kill someone. But i disagree because the stop and frisk program can be racist towards certain people. Like the article from ms selip's class said that 83% of people stopped are hispanics and african americans.
ReplyDeleteso flooding hot spots with cops to do stop and frisk would slow criminals down but eventually their going to find a way around it, they always do
ReplyDeletei disagree because its an harrasement, it gives more serious crimes and also its racist towards certain people.
ReplyDeleteThe stoping and frisking doesnt work beacuse they would never catch the victom in action
ReplyDeleteI disagree, this method of preventing crime is unethical and unnecessarily invasive. Ordering police officers to perform these procedures in crowded areas is a mostly inefficient approach to lowering crime rates, as a vest majority of the people frisked are innocent. It is also creating racial tensions between cops and civilians, which is spreading into society. Supporters of this method argue that it's the best way to control the streets and the crime rate. I think that just because it seems like the most effective option, does not mean it's the right one.
ReplyDelete-Michelle Rodriguez blehlehlehlehleh
DeleteI agree with the idea of sending police into "hot spots" because it will reduce the crime and get rid of people that have weapons . Even though they will proably stop some innocent people , they'll still get some criminals or people with weapons
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement "By flooding hot spots with cops--and ordering them to give out summonses and perform stop-and-frisks the NYPD could prevent more serious crime." It can help lower the rate of crimes going on everywhere, which could drastically decrease the crime rates. With cops everywhere it could help keep innocent people from being in danger and reduce the crimes going on and get rid of the people who were carrying weapons.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the Stop and Frisk Method beacuase Like Shaun P. Singh said police officer like to abuse there victum just beacause maybe in school they use to get bullyed,abuse and want to take there angry out on the victum I dont know, im just guessing.But most definitely there should be a different process as in fixing crime.But from now on out, way more cameras and police station for interaction and criminal purpose.
ReplyDeleteI agree that putting officers in high crime areas could help prevent future crimes from happening. With cops everywhere it could help protect a lot of innocent people. At the same time I disagree because a lot of people who are stopped racially profiled. Just because someone is of a certain race or they look a certain way doesn't mean they are guilty of something someone else did its not right to accuse based on an assumption
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree with the statement because if you flood hot spots with cops and then give them summons and perform stop and frisks then it will prevent more crime in that area, but i also disagree because i believe the hot spots will be moved into a different area so you should have police scattered all around and not just hot spots
ReplyDeletei agree with this statement because if you issue out summonses and perform stop and frisk it will stop crimes from happening especially if they have to pay money for the summons if they keep acting up keep give them summonses. It could these innocent people from get hurt or injured and reduce the crime rate in the world. -Justin Castro
ReplyDeleteI agree that flooding hot spots with cops and performing stop and frisks and giving out summonses will prevent future crimes. Then again, if someone knows that the area they do crime in is flooded with cops all they will do is , commit crimes in a different neighborhood. Crime happens everywhere, so putting cops in hot spots will work for a certain amount of time in my opinion. -Kareem Alston
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the stop and frisk program beuase i feel that police officers stop people because of their race. So therefore it is more of a racial program then to protect people and stop crimes.Flooding hot spots with cops wouldn't make a difference.
ReplyDeleteI agree by with flooding the hot spots and performing more stop and frisks in certain areas but just because they flood those areas doesnt mean they can stop the more serious crimes , they might be able to slow it down but most likely wont be able to stop. This is mainly because People adapt to different situations so what is it to say that the people who commit these serious crimes wont adapt and find away around it themselves.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with flooding the hot spots and performing more "Stop and Frisk " in certain areas . Because 1. Their going to put more cops in black neighbors 2. It's racial profiling 3. I just disagree with this WHOLE "Stop and Frisk procedure because if you agree to " Stop and Frisk " In my eyes your racist or you feel threatened by people with a darker skin color . Theres alot of caucasian's that kill and catch way more cases than black's , black's get picked up on the street because it's either they were approached by a white or racist black male cop !
ReplyDeleteI agree with the flooding of officers to perform more stop and frisk because it will keep the guns and crime rate down so certain neighborhoods can be more safe from criminal behavior.
ReplyDeleteI agree with sending police officers into hot spots were crime seems to be abundant to perform stop & frisks because it can possibly lower the crime rate and potentially stop weapons such as guns knives etc and also even the influence of narcotics from being baught sold and distributed just as long as officers do not abuse there authority while doing so.
ReplyDeleteI agree with flooding hotspots with cops and performing Stop and Frisk. These locations are where most crimes can be prevented. If people know they are innocent and did nothing wrong, they should have nothing to worry about. It's just a method to keep their neighborhoods and public areas safe. One change I feel that should be made is who cops target. Not only does an African American or Latino male posses weaponry, it can be anyone. Overall, flooding hotspots will decrease crime rate.
ReplyDeleteI agree with flooding hotspots with cops and ordering them to give out summonses and perform stop and frisks. This will warn criminals to walk without drugs and/or weapons in areas of high population thus bringing down crime rate and also eliminating chances of serious crimes.
ReplyDeleteI disagree because by giving people tickets & they don't pay or forget there would be a warren issue so now people might get stopped again and than they will go to jail
ReplyDeleteI agree with the the idea of stop and frisk but i disagree with the way the police officers go about handling the situation. I agree with this being for our protection and crime rate has gone down from stop and frisk. But the police need to use different tactics to make this an organized situation. The police go after the same people all the time so they are frisked about 3-5 times. This situation needs to be handled carefully for it to work. Megan Frary
ReplyDeleteI think stop and frisk are needed in hotspots were crime is potentially high . As of spots were there potentially and evidently no threats. But in doing so the police can over do there job and start racial profiling. At the police academy there tought that stopping someone because of racial profiling will cost them there job .But I agree to an extent only if racial profiling is not the given cause
ReplyDeleteCops should not be flooding the street at hotspots because they should be doing work that concerns a police officer and not hassle the public just because they look a certain way. They should be out fighting crime and trying to catch rapist and murders and not hassling the public
ReplyDeleteI disagree with flooding the hotspots with police because if you put too much police in just one spot, yeah they could catch a few people that are doing something wrong but the crime could move to a different area too.
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree because its good to flood the hotspots where a lot of crime happens but to not ever do it and just flood some are that may be hot but not as hot as other because they can just go up to anyone and frisked them down but not find anything
ReplyDeleteI agree only to the point where they are flossing the hotspots. It allows them to douse and prevent any potential crimes and murders. I don't really agree with the stopping and frisking of everyone. Personally I think you Flood the hotspots and get the crime out as fast as possible then you wouldn't have to worry about so many cops stopping And FriskING minorities
ReplyDeleteFlooding
DeleteBy flooding hot spots with cops in a bad area makes sense to me , but ordering them to give out summonses and perform stop and frisks is unnecessary. I Think it is unnecessary because it is not preventing any crime. According to the article "A Touchy Subject" , it states that 90 percent of the people stopped by New York police officers weren't arrested or ticketed. Which Means That The Stop and Frisk policy is unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteTruly disagree with this statement .If you "Flood" these hot spots with more and more police and hand out abundant of summonses than all its going to do is cause more issues and this is not a racial issues now this is the power of authority vs the community , the police and community citizens are now at war .., whats going to happen then ? -Na'Daije Gresham
ReplyDeleteim neutral to this question because i feel as if this policy is not stopping anything, it brings more harm towards another area because once they look into a bad area they just move the crime to a least hot spot. so this policy is really not stopping anything. mean while it helps to decrease crime rates by stoppin people who do look suspicious. also i think its not right to make them stop and frisk because just cause the area is a hot spot does not mean everyone in the area is a crimminal.
ReplyDeleteI agree with flooding hot spots because that is where the high crimes may happen and ofcourse you want to lower the crime rate but i disagree with the stop and frisk because police abuse that athority and take it to a whole nother level and use racial profiling. "83 % of the stops are of minorities which only make up 25-28% of NYC population"..
ReplyDeletei agree with flooding hot spots because thats where these crimes are taking place. its sad to say but the places where these hotspots are happening is where the minorities are and that is why 88% of the people stop and frisked are black or hispanic
ReplyDeletei agree with flooding places wit hot spots bacause all of these crimes going on can save someones life if they dont have a phone but an ipod this will prevent alot of crimes from happening in new york city and alot of crime states and countres but if they think it helps people out
ReplyDeleteHi it's Yavalieth Pereira, I agree and disagree wit this quote only because I agree because it can stop a lot of death and crimes in our community and I disagree because cops would have the rights to target someone jus to bother them .
ReplyDelete