Stop and Frisk in Emergency Situation.

STAGE 5: Objections
Police should only use Stop and Frisk in emergency situations. 
Objection:
Objections to main arguments: Saying that the Police can only use Stop and Frisk in emergency situations would run counter to public safety. There are many instances, which would not fall under the definition of emergency, where police officers would have to stop and frisk an individual for as long as it is within the confines of standard operating protocols.
 
Evaluation of objection: This is a dangerous and problematic objection since it decreases the level of tolerance that police officers have towards the citizens. Police officers are always mandated to exercise the highest level of tolerance and to not infringe upon the civil liberties of individuals. However, allowing them to stop and frisk more individuals could infringe these rights.
Based on this, the statement seems reasonable provided it is within the standard operating procedures and within the confines of the law. 
* PRO: When there is a clear and present danger, like a bomb threat or suspected concealed weapon, police are justified. The specific scenario will be the motivator for the search, not the individual's potential “criminal” factor. If any suspicious activity is seen, then the police should have the ability to use Stop and Frisk in order to confirm any suspicions in order to make sure the community is not at risk of any dangers.
* AGAINST: In specific scenarios, the potential criminal is unlikely to submit themselves for a stop and frisk, and confrontational police activity may worsen the situation. Racial bias will still be an issue here, as is excessive force. Police activity may also lead to worsening activity  simply as a motive to cause more danger.
Police should use Stop and Frisk in areas of high crime. 
Objection:
Objections to main arguments: Saying that the Police ‘should’ use stop and frisk in areas of high crime is reasonable.
 
Evaluation of objection: This statement would not be violative of the equal protection clause since there is a ‘substantial distinction’ between areas of lower crime rate and higher crime rate. Since the tendency for crime to happen is more likely in the latter, ...