The Issue: The opposition to New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy among City Council members.
***
Kudos to the police unions for taking an active stand against self-serving City Council members who want to further their own careers by pushing an anti-police agenda, which is also anti-public safety (“Cops vs. the Council,” Editorial, July 1).
Clearly, these misguided politicians are pandering to criminals, thugs and low-lifes, who they believe are their core constituents.
Shame on them, and thanks to The Post for publishing their names.
Cops put their lives on the line every day to protect us and to ensure that the greatest city in the world is safe.
Just ask the families of officers like Peter Figoski. The least we can do to honor them is to show support at the ballot box.
Charles T. Compton
The Bronx
Our laws are written on general principles. Reckless driving is a fair example: A police officer is not limited to a narrow definition of recklessness.
Stop-and-frisk is based upon a principle: Personal privacy is subordinate to the interests of public safety. The problem with this is its complete subjectivity.
How much privacy may the police deny us for how much more public safety?
How much more safety than we enjoy now is enough to justify the denial of a bit more of our liberty?
It is not worth our safety to prejudice the liberty we take for granted.
Enoch Wisner
Neshanic, NJ