Your argument is clear, and you continue to make it. It looks/quacks like a duck (the duck is racism) and that I supposedly support it but just call it by a different name. You are calling me a racist, and you are calling, essentially every police officer a racist, too. But you HAVE to do that in order to try and make your point. If you are going to claim that Terry Stops are racist, this is the rabbit hole you have to go down.
I guess my argument isn't as clear as you claim.
In reality, a terry stop is much simpler. The Supreme Court found that reasonable suspicion is a valid reason to perform a search of a person. Good, decent, hard working police officers search suspicious people every day, all over the country. They aren't racist for doing that. And using one questionable program from a single department is not going to make the case that police all over the country are just raging racists who like to molest black people for any made up reason they can come up with.
You can keep calling it a Terry Stop all you like. That doesn't make it a Terry Stop. You keep conveniently forgetting that a Terry Stop requires that the Police Office has a "reasonable suspicion" that the
specific individual being searched had committed a crime. A "reasonable suspicion" is, whilst not explicitly defined in every single circumstance, a well understood principle. Some examples might include matching the description of a person known to have committed a crime recently, running from the scene of a crime, acting suspiciously, witness testimony. Get the picture?
The Stop and Frisk policy simply ignored that requirement.
Let me ask you this, if "Stop and Frisk" was merely a Terry Stop
1: Why institute an entire policy around "Stopping and Frisking" large numbers of people on a regular basis?
2: Why not simply remind Officers at the daily briefing to perform a Terry Stop if they have reasonable suspicion of someone having committed a crime, as would be their job anyway?
3: Most importantly, why did the number of "Terry Stops" suddenly sky rocket under this policy?
Did crime suddenly sky rocket and hence tens of thousands more "Terry Stops" were suddenly being performed just coincidentally when an entire policy built upon "Stopping and Frisking" random people was implemented? Why were Terry Stops not being done prior? Were NYPD Officers up to that point incompetent and unable to form "reasonable suspicion" or was there just far, far less crime in NYC up to that point?
Wow, talk about a strawman. Have I ever even implied such a thing? Of course not. But THAT is your argument and now you said I seemingly want being black to be considered suspicious? My goodness. Yes, your arguments are absurd and now you are flat out making things up to try and be right.
Lets see....
1: The evidence certainly suggests that being black was a key component in choosing who to "Stop and Frisk". That is almost entirely beyond dispute unless one wants to be argue in bad faith.
2: You claim "Stop and Frisk" is in actuality a "Terry Stop".
3: A "Terry Stop"
requires the Officer to have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person being "stopped and frisked" has actually committed a crime.
4: Evidence shows that in approximately 75% of cases no crime had been committed. So either the NYPD Officers were completely incompetent at their job or they believed being black constituted a reasonable suspicion.
5: You support the "Stop and Frisk" policy.
So you either believe the majority of NYPD Officers were completely incompetent and yet still had the complete support of their Senior Officers and Mayor or you believe that the NYPD Officers were correct in thinking being black constituted a "reasonable suspicion" of having committed a crime.
Which is it?
ETA: I posted before reading the rest of the thread.
I see now that you seem to admit the "Stop and Frisk" policy, which previously you explicitly supported, was a flawed policy.
So I'd ask how is a "Stop and Frisk" different to a "Terry Stop". If they are actually no different, as you have been arguing for some time, then "Stop and Frisk" is not flawed at all but merely the implementation of current legislation.