Terry Stops and 3 Strikes Laws-Time to Revisit Both (Pt 1)

Some time back, I remember listening to the David Webb Show** and he had on a retired NYPD Police Captain. His guest was pretty brutal in his assessment of the then Mayor of Gotham. His view was pretty close to mine, although not quite as salty. His words did however, provide the start point for this little piece.New York Mayor Warren Wilhelm Jr. also known as “Bill DeBlasio” had gone from prohibiting Terry Stops by his Patrolmen, to outright elimination of critical units within the NYPD—I’m thinking the Anti Crime Unit.

That’s not the primary purpose of this article. Over the next day or so, we are going to talk about some of the most effective techniques of reducing violent crime. Today’s article will focus on the Terry Stop, also known as “Stop and Frisk.

The Terry Stop got its name from a Supreme Court case back in 1968. In the Reader’s Digest version, a police officer observed two men acting suspiciously. They appeared to be “casing” a business in preparation for an armed robbery. The Officer approached the two men, patted them down and discovered a firearm. Both of them were convicted on a weapons charge.

It didn’t stop there. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which ruled that the pat down and subsequent search was legal. I remember how it got explained to me when I went through the Police Academy. You need “reasonable suspicion” for a Terry Stop. Reasonable suspicion is somewhere between mere suspicion (or a hunch) and probable cause or actual knowledge.

Bob Weir over at American Thinker explains all of this in detail and from a Patrol Officer viewpoint. It’s a great article. I highly recommend it.

Read: A cop explains why stop-and-frisk works

Since that SCOTUS decision, hundreds of thousands of illegal firearms have been taken off the street and countless lives saved…many of them Black lives. Of course, like any other common sense program that actually works, Democrats are against it. And like many things Democrats are against, they feel the need to throw the race card. Enter Mayor Willhelm…Ahem! DeBlasio who pledged to greatly reduce the practice and has done so. Most recently, in an act of spineless pandering to the mobs, he disbanded the City’s Anti-Crime Unit which worked in plainclothes and made very effective use of the Terry Stop to get illegal weapons and their criminal possessors, off the street.

That is one of the huge, direct benefits of the Terry Stop. It gets a criminal off the street, however temporarily. It gets that illegal firearm of the street, permanently. There is also a modest deterrent effect. Illegal gun possession carries a pretty decent penalty for a convicted felon. Knowing he can be stopped and patted down, may reduce a felon’s inclination to carry a firearm, or at least make it more risky to do so. Obviously, the Communist front groups known as ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter, now have no such concerns, thanks to the previous Mayor of New York and the leadership Democrat burgs.

Tomorrow, 3 Strikes and how Democrats want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Stay tuned.

**David Webb can be found on Sirius XM 125 (Patriot) M-F, 9-1200 EST.

Here is some other reading for those interested in this particular piece of Police procedure:

Read—Career Criminals Targeted: The Verdict is in, California’s Three Strikes Law Proves Effective

Read—A Primer—Three Strikes – The Impact After More Than a Decade

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us

Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
Parler: https://parler.com/AFNNUSA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA


4 thoughts on “Terry Stops and 3 Strikes Laws-Time to Revisit Both (Pt 1)”

  1. Terry stops are a good way to prevent crimes. The main issue against them is racial profiling. While crime stats is may back up most of the stops, profiling based on race will always be the issue against them. No one should feel they live in a “police state”.

    • A point I’ve made countless times with regressives, aka liberals. They complain cops conduct anti-crime operations against black and browns “disproportionally” than whiles. John Dillinger answered, when asked why he robbed banks, “Because that’s where the money is.” Why do cops go into minority neighborhoods? Because that’s where the crime is. So yes, we will engage with minorities more often than whites. It’s not profiling a race, it’s going where they are needed the most.

Leave a Comment