New York Mayor Seeks To End Stop and Frisk
Read Time:1 Minute, 24 Second
Thanks to innovative crime fighting techniques the crime rate in New York, one of the most dangerous cities in the world, has plummeted, and that’s due, in part to Rudy Giuliani. He and his successors understood the need to employ controversial techniques in order to save lives and reduce crime rates.
Unfortunately, the new mayor, a super liberal by all accounts, has decided to undo what his predecessors have done, opening the city to criminals and crimes of all stripes.
Bill de Blasio announced last night that he’s moving to settle the lawsuits concerning the NYPD’s controversial practice, which he denounced as “broken and misused.” To underline just how radically the city’s position had shifted, the newly-minted mayor was flanked by the very people who had filed those lawsuits, the New York Times reports. “We’re here today to turn the page on one of the most divisive problems in our city,” de Blasio said.
NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton also used the occasion to accuse predecessor Ray Kelly of pressuring cops to stop and frisk more people, which the Wall Street Journal sees as the strongest indication yet that illegal quotas were in place. “I don’t think we can use the term quotas,” Bratton said. But they were “being pushed hard to do more.” The settlement will essentially implement the reforms ordered in August by a district court judge who found stop-and-frisk unconstitutional. An appeals court struck down that ruling, and is now giving the police union, which is interceding in the case, until Feb. 7 to respond to the proposed settlement.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
I once asked a very attractive police woman if she would care to frisk me. Sadly she just smiled and walked on. Probably not really relevant I suppose….
We had ‘Stop And Search’ over here in Blighty. Still do up to a point. Racial minorities objected that they were being unfairly targeted in areas where racial minorities were a majority. Erm?
This isn’t New York though so our crime problems may well differ up to a point. Besides you have to have complete faith in the police to have any chance of it working and, despite acknowledging most police officers have a difficult and dangerous job, sadly, some are just dicks.
Cute. My – as yet unrealized – dream, is to jump into a cruiser stopped at a light, and yell, “Airport! And step on it!”
lol David. I did have a guy ask me one time if I would give him a ride home. This was a long time ago and because he was drunk at a bar but had enough sense to at least ask I did. I am quite sure he had a story to tell his friends if he actually remembered.
Racial profiling is a centuries old practice. So let’s not forget that part of the imbalance in crime stats can be attributed to the fact that, if you’re black and male, you’re a suspect at all times.
There’s an old fable. A man is looking for his keys under a streetlamp at night. A passerby learns the dilemma and joins in the hunt. Eventually the passerby ask, “Are you sure you dropped them here?” The man replies, “No, I dropped them over there, in the dark, buy the dumpster.” The passerby was incredulous. The man adds, “…because this is where the light is.”
Black men are the well-lit area under the streetlamp. Meanwhile, far less effort is put into looking at the white population. And I watched a Bloomberg interview in which he said as much. He also said that profiling is perfectly legitimate.
Jim, as I so often do with your posts, I am left thinking, “Damn, I wish I’d said that.”
My only excuse is I am having a bad time physically right now. It’s hard to think clearly when your body is screaming, “Make it stop.” That’s why torture so often brings out exactly what you want to hear.
Thanks for the kind words. I sure hope you feel better soon. I am on the repair side of an ugly skin infection – from a damned sliver – that had me in the ER yesterday and on IV antibiotics. I’ll live, but there are only a few enemies I’d wish this on…let’s start with Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest of that gang of propagandists. 🙂
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is the exact quote from Lord Acton to Bishop somebody or other as I recall. It is not, in this context at least, applicable because the police do not have and likely will never have absolute power. There are lots and lots of checks and balances built into the system, and while there will always be a small group of people who hate the police regardless of what they do, how they do it, and the outcome of their actions, the majority understand this and support the police.
As to minorities caught in S&F it’s important to understand that people of color commit a lot more crime that white people. I know this sounds like a racist statement but that is not my intent. Simply go to http://www.fbi.gov and look for yourself. As a result, non-whites will certainly be stopped and frisked more than whites in some areas. It’s a rather simple formula really and the police inevitably get a bad rap from liberals for just doing their job.
So that being said let me close with the words of Ringo Starr, “peace and love, peace and love.”
Or perhaps it’s people that are poor and have less that commit more crimes. Yes, you are a racist and trying to excuse yourself only makes it worse.
Quoting Ringo doesn’t make you sound any better, either.
I’m a black man married to an Hispanic woman. Yes Mr. Smith. No doubt I’m a racist.
First of all, you saying it doesn’t make it the truth.
Next, I have known plenty of racist blacks and Hispanics.
So far, all you have demonstrated is that you have a racist attitude and try to excuse it with smarmy excuses.
Rowdy,
I don’t entirely disagree with your points. I’ll push back in two areas:
1. “Checks and Balances” – ideally perhaps, but just ask the folks in Selma about those checks and balances.
2. The absolute power isn’t in the hands of the police. The “absolute power” I referred to resides in the commissioner, mayor and police leadership who give the police their marching orders. The police are tools of power. To cite an example, there’s nothing wrong with the National Guard, but at Kent State, these tools of power ended up murdering students.
“Just following orders” is both an excuse and a legitimate justification. That’s a hard distinction to make, a very fuzzy, broad line, as we discovered at the Nuremberg Trials.
As for the comment about ethnicity and crime rates, if you take into consideration another variable – poverty – it changes the view a lot. Violent crime by economic strata shows that poor people are more likely to commit crimes, and it just so happens that more African Americans are in desperate poverty. So, do we S&F all poor people?
From the beginning, my point has been that this power was abused from the top down. What started out as another tool in the toolbox soon became an end in itself. This abuse poisoned the well, and the voter reaction was fierce and resounding. Baby and bathwater, both out the window…perhaps never to return.
Some evidence of the relationship between poverty and violent crime: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9683374
Mr. Moore, I thank you for engaging in this important discussion in a courteous and respectful manner, as opposed to name calling and other allegations not supported by the evidence.
To your first point, Selma was a long, long time ago and we have come a long way since then.
To your second point I understood that your “power” comment was related more to those in control, such as local government, and etc. however the cops catch a lot of grief for just doing their job so I thought it incumbent on me to mention them as an extension of that power. As to Kent State you are absolutely right and it was an excellent example of government out of control, but that was the National Guard, not the police that shot those four students in 1970.
Poverty certainly plays a role in crime, and sadly, so does race. The fact is black people are more likely to be impoverished than white people, and black people commit crime at a disproportionate rate, and you mention that.
In conclusion power is often abused from the top down, but now is not the time to throw out the baby simply because it seems the best way to clean the bathwater.
Thanks again for an intelligent discussion. While we don’t agree on all things we are much closer than we were when we read our first words.
Rowdy,
It isn’t that they commit more crime but they happen to get caught for more crime. Statistically speaking they commit no more crime than any other race but they are more visible and easier to catch. For example, white collar crime such as internal theft, counterfeiting of money, pirating of films and music, ponzi schemes, bank fraud are committed more frequently than is reported through the UCR or the SEC and the perpetrators are often caught but rarely prosecuted. Latest studies indicate that 92% of people have committed an act that if they were caught they could be criminally prosecuted for it. Just think Bernie Madoff did more damage in his single ponzi scheme ($50 billion) than all of the burglaries in any given year. That is one white guy.
David we have long agreed to disagree and we manage to do it in a civil manner, just like the friends we are.
I do have some observations that I would like to share however, and as always welcome all polite commentary.
In the Big Apple, New Yorkers have to choose between retaining proactive policing, which has kept the city safe for so long, or going back to the reactive model that was in effect when the streets of many neighborhoods were dominated by criminals.
In deciding, keep in mind the fate of Detroit. Not too long ago, it was one of America’s top five cities. Then violence began to tear it apart. Its murder rate is now 10 times higher than New York’s — and Detroit has seen two thirds of its population flee.
Back in 1990, New York looked to be heading that way, with national publications featuring stories about the fall of the Big Apple. It didn’t happen because New Yorkers fought back effectively with programs like stop and frisk among others.
New York’s current policing model (like any program) can always be improved. But calls to virtually abolish it must be resisted, lest we return to the bad old days when gunmen ruled the streets and crime threatened to destroy the greatest city in the world.
The fact is if racism and profiling exist within the stop and frisk paradigm it’s these elements that need to be addressed. Throwing out the entire program is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Never a good outcome for the baby.
Mike, there is a huge difference between proactive policing and what was going on in New York and you know it friend. And to attribute the falling crime rate to it is total horse hockey and, I think, you know that also. New York’s crime rate has followed the ebb and flow of the country’s. In some parts of New York crime is worse than others. In Tuscaloosa, Alabama crime is worse than others. But proactive policing does not mean that stopping and frisking every person of color is going to necessarily lower the violent crime rate as Kelly stated. I realize that you always take a tough cop position but there are times when even you have to recognize when a legitimate police tactic has been taken too far. Most crimes of violence are committed not stranger to stranger but among acquaintances. That is a statistic fact. When you look at the statistics of the New York program it is clearly focused on young men of color and mostly ends up with arrests for marijuana which, as you have pointed out, should be legalized.
I think the Ohio water has messed with your brain and caused you to backslide.
Agreed. My issue with S&F is that it nets too many marijuana busts as opposed to crimes that truly cause harm. And it is biased against the poor, Black population. Mandated sentencing laws have worked in conjunction with S&F to decimate these neighborhoods.
Bill once again we find ourselves at odds, but as always we shall agree to disagree. Please consider and answer this question:
A man is bitten by a dog on the corner or Elm and Maple. The victim and witnesses swear he was bitten by a black dog. This is an area that is home to many strays, both black and white. The animal protection people have been called. What color dog should they look for?
Yeah, but MM, remember that idiot who shot himself in the leg on I-4? A couple of days ago? I’ve been thinking about that case, and it occurred to me that the doctor would have had to ask him how it happened. Now, this is Florida. The guy has neighbors, etc. He can’t very well tell the doc that he shot himself. He could never hold his head up high, in Florida ever again. In fact, he’d rather have shot himself in the head than have to admit that he’s the dumbest gunslinger in Florida’s proud history. So, 10 to 1 he said, “A Black dude did it.”
Your point about the black dog is well taken. Only problem with that analogy is that the witnesses probably don’t have preconceptions about the dogs. They see a dog bite a guy, and the dog happens to be black. It could have had spots. A dog’s a dog. But witnesses are more likely to see a Black dude committing a crime, because you see what you want to see.
Agreed!
By your way of thinking Mike, all black dogs will be taken to the pound and euthanized since obviously they can only distinguish the color of the dog and no individual features. It would be really problematic if they said brown dog and it turned out to be a well tanned white dog would it not but, as you said, this was a black dog. Was it a big black dog, small black dog, collar, no collar, long tail, no tail, no other color markings, or some white markings. Wow! That sounds like genocide to me Mike. Isn’t this the same thing Hitler did to the Jews?
Again, agreed. But it needs to be judiciously implemented, and can never be biased against people of color or the poor. Rich, White people can carry guns too.
All very interesting commentary, but sadly uninformed. As far back as 1911, the state Legislature passed the Sullivan Law, with its seven-year sentence for individuals who carried a gun without a license — and cops began routinely searching persons who appeared to be carrying a firearm. In other states, field interrogations were always a common police tactic.
The US Supreme Court upheld the practice in 1968; the key question in individual cases is whether the search is “reasonable.” In determining that, appellate courts will often disagree by margins of 3-2 or 5-4. But a police officer faced with the prospect of being shot can’t engage in a leisurely deliberation.
During the crime deluge of the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s, New York cops had less time to conduct field interrogations because they were spending as much as 90 percent of their tours of duty answering 911 calls. The NYPD was reduced to containing crime rather than significantly reducing it. By 1990 the city was recording over 2,000 murders a year, up from about 500 in the mid ’60s.
Then the NYPD commenced a huge rollback of crime, employing intensive patrolling and enforcement in high-violence areas. In this model, police don’t wait for someone to call 911 after a crime occurs; they instead try to stop criminals before they can strike. These police interventions sometimes cause people to complain.
In the wake of all the mass shootings, there will be calls for stricter law enforcement against guns. Yet when police take action they are criticized. For example, the fact that relatively few guns are recovered in New York street stops is cited as negating the need for searches. Actually, that fact indicates that gun-carrying has declined significantly because criminals fear they may be searched.
New York’s efforts have been so successful that our overall crime rate is now 75 percent lower than it was 20 years ago. Murders are back down to the 500-a-year level.
Very interesting indeed Lincoln, and I agree with you on all points. Thanks for the research.
The significant phrase there is “appeared to be carrying a firearm” As in “probable cause.”
As far as the crime rate, it is actually down all over the USA. That includes murders and other violent crime. Is that cause to ignore Constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure? Or perhaps the Constitution really is “just a goddamned piece of paper?”
Sorry James but Stop & Frisk has long been upheld by SCOTUS in the Terry v. Ohio case:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html
So, it ain’t unconstitutional for the police to stop and frisk an individual provided they can make a case for probable cause, which isn’t hard to do.
Are you saying that everything that has been ruled by the SCOTUS has been correct and none have ever been overturned at a later date?
If probably cause is so easy to do, why are they not doing it.
Sorry, but the USA is not really a free country any more. For example:
It isn’t as if any rational person still believes the USA is a free country. Think about it. No-warrant wire taps, indefinite detention of citizens without charges, approval of rendition of prisoners and torture, stop and frisk without probable cause, search and seizure without a warrant, no-knock entry, confiscation and destruction of cameras that might have been used to film police acting illegally, police brutality, police shootings that go without investigation, managed news, and the civil-rights destroying “Patriot” Act.
Acts of police behaving illegally, with shootings, Tasers, and unwarranted violence now appear almost daily. Rarely are these offenses punished. Most often “an investigation” is claimed, but soon forgotten.
In addition, the USA, with perhaps 5% of the world population, has 25% of all of the prisoners in the world. That means the USA has the most people in prison of any nation in history. Even by percentage of residents incarcerated, not just sheer numbers. USA is # 1
Does any of that sound like a free country?
As Dwight D. Eisenhower said about communism, “It’s like slicing sausage. First they out off a small slice. That isn’t worth fighting over. Then they take another small slice that isn’t worth fighting over. Then another and another. Finally, all you have left is the string and that isn’t worth fighting over, either.
Guns, yes. A couple of joints, no.
AWM (Alive While Minority) is hardly and American virtue.
There used to be such a thing as probable cause. There also used to be a thing called “The Constitution”. Perhaps those days are over?
Two points of view here:
1. Public safety improved.
2. “Gestapo” tactics have always been effective at terrorizing citizens into compliance and driving “unsavory” behavior underground or into new avenues of misconduct.
The law of the pendulum applies here…and this is a lesson for the Tea Party. The farther the pendulum swings in one direction…the more extreme its arc, the more momentum it has to go to the opposite extreme. In this case, NYC has a long love affair with conservative mayors. De Blasio was elected as a reaction to what had become Gestapo tactics. “Stop and Frisk” may have started out with good intentions, and had the policy been employed judiciously and equitably, it’s very likely that it would still be a respected policy.
Of course, human nature being what it is, “power corrupts and unlimited power corrupts absolutely.” This is sad, because S&F is an extension of “…what are you up to?” An individual who appears to be “up to something” or who resembles a wanted person might reasonably be subject to S&F – if there is truly probable cause.
What had become clear, however, was that the policy was not producing results. And the policy disproportionately targeted African American males.
From MSNBC (admittedly not the most unbiased source)
“The success rate for finding a weapon or drugs in a ‘stop-and-frisk’ situation is just 1 in 147 stops for African-Americans, 1 in 99 for Hispanics, and 1 in 20 for whites. That means that of the more than 500,000 mostly black and brown people stopped, only around 16,000 guns were taken off the street. Surely that big gun bust that the mayor and police commissioner were bragging about didn’t come about as a result of stopping, questioning, and humiliating hundreds of thousands of one-off minority residents of the safest big city in America.” http://on.msnbc.com/1dSBG6h
I interpret the 1:20 for whites as evidence that judicious application of the “appears to be up to no good” standard yields results. 5% is a very good rate of return. On the other hand, .68% success in discovering criminal behavior among African Americans is evidence of both abject failure of the program and race-based implementation.
Again, the pendulum swings both ways, and extremes are inevitably met with extreme reactions. The nature of the beast is that extreme, outrageous shifts inevitably fuel and energize backlash. As I hinted at the beginning of this comment, it would behoove Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan and the rest of the Tea Party to remember that the law of the pendulum makes few exceptions, and one can sense that the intransigent, “do-less-than-nothing” Congress is about to get its comeuppance.
Stay safe, NYC.
MM. This my friend, is one area where we’ll have to agree to disagree. Stop and Frisk has been a disaster for poor and ethnocentric communities. It is the worst form of profiling, and has led to several cases of police brutality – and worse. It is despised by the Black community in NYC, and other cities where it has been employed.
Sure, crime rates drop, but at what price? This is America. Our constitutional protections are being eroded daily, and Stop and Frisk is one of the worst examples of such an erosion.
in terms of what the lawsuits against the city will cost the stop and frisk is wildly inefficent
It’s way past time for the seeking of it. Needs to be stopped period.