What U. S. Supreme Court case confirmed that a basic “stop and frisk” for officer safety (search for weapons) is not a violation of the 4th amendment?

Terry v. Ohio

Explanation:

Because the conduct witnessed by the police officer reasonably led him to believe that an armed robbery was in prospect, he was as reasonably led to believe that the men were armed and probably dangerous and that his safety required a “frisk.” Because the object of the “frisk” is the discovery of dangerous weapons, “it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.”

their just depressed and think that if they give pain to some one else the pain goes away from them. which it doesn't.

answer:

b. tell a trusted adult

explanation:

most reasonable¯\_(ツ)_/¯(^.^)/~~~