Question

Stop and frisk was designed to decrease crime and thereby increase peace in communities. Do you believe that stop and frisk succeeds or fails to promote peace? Why?

Answer 1

Answer:

Yes.

Explanation:

It fails.

It can be inferred that in a questionable situation an officer would likely frisk a suspect to ensure they are unarmed, however, in some cases where police have taken advantage of their position of power, women have been "frisked" even when it was uncalled for and they were quite clearly unarmed. In most cases it may make sense to frisk them, but not in all cases and thus it fails to keep the peace because it causes more crime through corruption of power.

Answer 2

Answer:

It succeeds.

Explanation:

“Police may stop a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may frisk the suspect for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous, without violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.”

They only do this with sufficient cause. If a police officer sees a man that looks like he has a gun on his hip, he may stop and frisk him. This is what the above statement pertains to. When Liberals want to take away our American right to have guns, they are also going against what they think is police brutatlity and racial injustice when a police officer may stop and frisk someone. A house divided against itself can not stand, so when we are fighting against our police, and what they do, and then we are fighting against crime and trying to take away our guns so we cannot protect ourselves, isn't that just plain foolish? We cannot stand if we do not stand together.  

I hope this makes sense, and I hope this helps. Thanks! BRAINLIEST PLEASE!