It all depends on your goals.

Objectively speaking, criminality of all forms was much lower while Stop'n'Frisk policies were in effect, and bounced back upwards after its removal. That does not mean it is directly attributable, only clearly correlated, but other locations without that variable did not show that same change. Until further study, we must assume there's a relationship between the variables.

So if your goal is reduction in criminality, it is a laudable policy.

If your goal is freedom, then it becomes more questionable, as criminality reduces freedom (so the policy increases freedom), but so too does government intervention (so the policy decreases freedom).

Too many people argue on the internet, without defining what it is they're arguing for or against. If you argue something is not good, you must define what "good" means for that context.