You mean the policy that was aggressively fought by the very same people fighting this policy? Who exactly do you think you're arguing against here?

Are you looking for a "good job potato3732842 for being mad about Stop and Frisk previously," and unless you get that you're going to hem and haw about how awful a nationwide expansion of a far more aggressive variant with far worse consequences at orders of magnitude larger scale of a similar policy is?

> enforcement excess evaporates overnight if people get full protection afforded by their rights after law enforcement interacts with them.

Yeah, duh. That's why people are here advocating for people to retain their rights and for law enforcement to be held accountable.

If your argument is that the current policy is just another point on the same continuum as many others: yes, obviously that's true.

If your argument is that this means it's somehow equivalent to other points on the same continuum: no, obviously it's not.

If your argument is instead that this is a different point on the same continuum, but because people weren't upset about Point A they have no justification to be upset (or even more upset) about Point B: that's ridiculous.