Letters | STOP & FRISK: ABOUT TIME, OR A SLIPPERY SLOPE?

L

AST WEEK, we asked if it made sense, with the level of homicides and other violence on our streets, to let police stop and frisk people to uncover illegal weapons. Your responses:

It's about time

Crime has reached epidemic proportions, and it is definitely time for drastic measures. While individual rights are a major concern, the right to live in a safe environment is essential to one's well-being and peace of mind.

Much effort has been put forth to address the problem, but at the core is a mentality that makes it OK to kill for minor infractions, and a prison sentence is considered a rite of passage. Changing the way people think will require lots of time, money and dedication - but in the meantime, something must be done.

Declaring emergency zones is a good idea, but we must be careful not to slide down a slippery slope.

Tammy Butler, Philadelphia

Poor will bear the brunt

I don't trust the police to arbitrarily determine who should be stopped and frisked. What will the criteria be? This will disproportionately affect the poor (no matter what color) because this will only apply to the city's "worst" neighborhoods.

I live in one of those neighborhoods and don't want the police bothering my son or me when we are just walking down the street. The police should not be able to detain and search anyone who hasn't broken a law. Walking down the street in a poor neighborhood isn't illegal.

Shawna Holts, Philadelphia

Tough times, tough tactics

To hell with the constitutional-rights thing. If a person wants to act, dress and associate himself with the very "thug element" he knows police are scrutinizing, then he wants to be stopped and frisked.

If a person wants to stand on a street corner all day, supposedly doin' nothin', then he wants to be stopped and frisked.

And, definitely, if a person wants to carry an illegal concealed firearm, then he wants to be stopped and frisked.

Tough times deserve tough tactics. Guaranteed, the only people objecting to stop-and-frisk are the criminals. Now let's work on the judges to keep them in prison.

Darnell Perry Sr., Philadelphia

Many, many questions

What happens to the law-abiding working people who live in these zones?

We work every day, sometimes into the night. Taking public transportation and then walking the rest of the way from the el or bus stop is already kind of scary in these areas. My own mother has been doing this for 27 years.

A curfew may sound good if you work during the day, but now you have a bunch of folks in their rowhomes causing a ruckus (because they won't be allowed outside) and disrupting the peaceful enjoyment of our homes. I dread the summer because that disruption is imminent.

As for stop-and-frisk, I would be quite upset to be accosted by the police while trying to get home before the curfew.

And who would determine who gets frisked? I think you'd have more thugs hiding guns in public places instead of on their person. (How they hide their drugs.) That's a more dangerous risk to the community. Suppose a child happens upon a hidden firearm and thinks it's a toy?

We have to form some kind of bond between citizens in these zones and the police. That will not be easy. Some who have called the police for other reasons (loud music, domestic disputes, street fights) are happy when the police show up but then they're treated as if the complaint is insignificant. In reality, these issues can escalate into more violent situations.

Cecilia Midiri, Philadelphia

Gun control is a violation, too

Stop-and-frisk violates the Bill of Rights. But so does gun control, and we've talked ourselves into that violation just as we once talked ourselves into the violation that banned "Lady Chatterley's Lover."

Does stop-and-frisk make sense? It goes after those who carry illegal weapons. Gun control goes after those who already obey the law. If y'all are bound and determined to bury the Bill of Rights, then stop-and-frisk makes sense.

But requiring government to abide by the Bill of Rights makes the most sense.

Peter Fallon, Philadelphia

All over, please

As a retired city correctional officer, I think stop-and-frisk is long overdue. But it should take place throughout the city, not just the "worst neighborhoods." The whole city is an emergency zone. Each officer on patrol should make five searchers per shift and log it.

This will not stop all illegal weapons, but it will make a big dent.

Anthony Porta, Sebring, Fla.

Responding to Jill

Re Jill Porter's column on crime:

Of course she would think Michael Nutter's crime plan is a good one - she is not the mother of a 17-year-old African-American son, and I venture to guess she does not live in one of the neighborhoods that would be affected by stop-and-frisk.

Every African-American male is not a gun-toting, blunt-smoking thug, and a lot of police officers have a hard time distinguishing between those who are, and those such as my son and many like him who live in so-called crime-ridden areas who are not, which is obvious to me by the several unwarranted car stops my son has had to endure, no doubt because he is young, African-American and male.

Mr. Nutter, since a certain portion of this city's civil liberties are unimportant to you, why just stop with frisking?

Why not interment camps for all males between the ages of 13 and 30 who live in the neighborhoods you would target, or better yet call in the National Guard and have them park their tanks on our corners? Why should we mind - as Jill Porter says, "We're being liberated."

Robin Cogbill, Philadelphia