or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Stop and Frisk (NYC) and Related Policies
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stop and Frisk (NYC) and Related Policies

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

Not racially motivated? Have you not heard the testimony of the police themselves who did the stopping? It was ALL about race.

85% of the stops were of blacks and hispanics,while they makeup about 50% of the population. In one year, the number of stops involving young black men EXCEEDED the city’s population of young black men. Meanwhile, a gun was found on 1.9% of the people who were stopped. That's a good enough reason to intimidate an entire group of people from just walking down the street? Seriously, you offer up an anecdote about one guy, while there were approximately 700,000 stops in NYC in 2011 and 85% of them were black or hispanic?
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post


Give me the pctgs of arrests by racial group and if not proportionate, I'll change my tune.

The anecdote was in reference to ur comment about being afraid to walk down the street. I thought u meant blacks were afraid to walk in white neighborhoods for fear of harrassment or worse.

 

The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered a weapon in one out every 49 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 71 stops of Latinos and 93 stops of African Americans to find a weapon.

 

The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded contraband was one-third less than that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered contraband in one out every 43 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 57 stops of Latinos and 61 stops of African Americans to find contraband.

 

This doesn't necessarily mean that white people were necessarily more likely to be carrying weapons or drugs. What it confirms is that the police were excessively targetting minorities. They were more likely to net successful stops against white people because they actually suspected there was a reason for the stop. They had a more arbitrary procedure when stopping blacks and latinos. Like, well, they were black and latino.

post #2 of 30

I'm extending a very short leash on this, but I thought this was relevant:

 

Quote:

PLAYBOY: So what are the criteria for a police officer to stop someone on the street?

 

KELLY: You can be stopped if a police officer reasonably suspects a crime is about to be committed, is being committed or has been committed. Every law enforcement agency does it. It’s essential to policing.

 

PLAYBOY: So you didn’t invent it.

 

KELLY: No. There is a 1968 Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio, that validates this procedure. Virtually all states use some variation of it.

 

PLAYBOY: Since 86 percent of the 5 million people stopped in the past 11 years were black or Latino, how is this not racial profiling?

 

KELLY: What criteria do you use? The federal judge says you look at the census data of a particular neighborhood and at overall crime to determine whether racial profiling is going on. That makes no sense, because half your stops would be women. In New York, 70 to 75 percent of the descriptions of perpetrators of violent crime are black men; the vast majority of the remainder is Latino. And 97 percent of shooting victims are black or Latino. Our stops are 53 percent black and roughly 35 percent Hispanic.

 

This link goes exactly where you think it goes, so you're forewarned (NSFW, etc.): http://www.playboy.com/playground/view/ray-kelly-nypd-playboy-interview?page=2

post #3 of 30
Last word from me. Based on earlier pctgs provided by phan (1.9% of 700,000 stops), that's 14,000 illegal guns off the street. Who is being protected by this? Predominantly other minorities.

The 2nd set of data phan provided was compelling to be sure. I still believe the overall good was served by stop and frisk. I believe NY will revert to the cesspool it was pre-Rudy but that remains to be seen. We'll have to wait and see what happens.
post #4 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post

Last word from me. Based on earlier pctgs provided by phan (1.9% of 700,000 stops), that's 14,000 illegal guns off the street. Who is being protected by this? Predominantly other minorities.

The 2nd set of data phan provided was compelling to be sure. I still believe the overall good was served by stop and frisk. I believe NY will revert to the cesspool it was pre-Rudy but that remains to be seen. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

 

Everybody in this country has the same Constitutional rights (supposedly) when it comes to search and seizure and equal protection under the law. There is no good being served when people are targeted because of their race. And you can't just stop people because a small percentage of them may be carrying an illegal weapon, no matter what their color may be.

 

The courts have already found that the NY policy was excessive and inconstitutional. There is a place for good police work around reasonable suspicion, but the NY stop and frisk wasn't that. Getting back to my point that blacks are not being unreasonable when they suspect racism at the core of such policies.

post #5 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

Everybody in this country has the same Constitutional rights (supposedly) when it comes to search and seizure and equal protection under the law. There is no good being served when people are targeted because of their race. And you can't just stop people because a small percentage of them may be carrying an illegal weapon, no matter what their color may be.

 

Certain kinds of people are far less likely to be carrying an illegal weapon, and certain other kinds are people are not.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

The courts have already found that the NY policy was excessive and inconstitutional. There is a place for good police work around reasonable suspicion, but the NY stop and frisk wasn't that. Getting back to my point that blacks are not being unreasonable when they suspect racism at the core of such policies.

 

The former police chief disagrees with you, and has some compelling numbers to back up his claims. There are many who will tell you racial profiling works.

 

Quote:
In New York, 70 to 75 percent of the descriptions of perpetrators of violent crime are black men; the vast majority of the remainder is Latino. And 97 percent of shooting victims are black or Latino. Our stops are 53 percent black and roughly 35 percent Hispanic.

 

FWIW, 53 + 35 = 88. 88 < 97.

 


 

Thread moved. It's no longer about Donald Sterling.

post #6 of 30
Ok, one more word.

I firmly believe in targeted profiling; it's an effective crime-fighting tool. It was stupid to search little old white ladies before boarding flights.

And black people on their lunch breaks on Wall St weren't being targeted for stop and frisk. Other factors besides race went into the officers' decision, clothing, behavior, among other things.

Profile the people more likely to commit the crime you're trying to prevent. Serial killers are largely white and male. As such, when developing a profile on an unsolved case, agencies start with that. Makes sense to me.
post #7 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post

Ok, one more word.

I firmly believe in targeted profiling; it's an effective crime-fighting tool. It was stupid to search little old white ladies before boarding flights.

And black people on their lunch breaks on Wall St weren't being targeted for stop and frisk. Other factors besides race went into the officers' decision, clothing, behavior, among other things.

Profile the people more likely to commit the crime you're trying to prevent. Serial killers are largely white and male. As such, when developing a profile on an unsolved case, agencies start with that. Makes sense to me.

That was 93 words. :-P

post #8 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

That was 93 words. b2_tongue.gif

Very nice,,
post #9 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

The courts have already found that the NY policy was excessive and unconstitutional. There is a place for good police work around reasonable suspicion, but the NY stop and frisk wasn't that. Getting back to my point that blacks are not being unreasonable when they suspect racism at the core of such policies.

 

Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

he former police chief disagrees with you, and has some compelling numbers to back up his claims. There are many who will tell you racial profiling works.

 

 

Well, the courts have found that the former police chief is on the wrong side of the law with how they proceeded with the policy. The lawsuit was not challenging the NYPD's authority to stop and, if necessary, search. It is HOW they did it. They have supervisors on tape telling the officers that they had quotas to fill. If they weren't meeting the quotas, a supervisor would go on patrol with them and make them stop people at random and issue summons.

 

Maybe the intent was a form of racial profiling based on reasonable suspicion, but what they ended up doing violated constitutional rights. And the numbers that I have already posted pretty much prove that race played a large part in the implementation of the policy.

post #10 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

Well, the courts have found that the former police chief is on the wrong side of the law with how they proceeded with the policy. The lawsuit was not challenging the NYPD's authority to stop and, if necessary, search. It is HOW they did it.

So nobody can disagree with the court?
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

Maybe the intent was a form of racial profiling based on reasonable suspicion, but what they ended up doing violated constitutional rights. And the numbers that I have already posted pretty much prove that race played a large part in the implementation of the policy.

Is it your opinion that racial profiling is ineffective? Immoral? What?
post #11 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

So nobody can disagree with the court?

Is it your opinion that racial profiling is ineffective? Immoral? What?

 

As I said, the courts did not rule on their ability to do it, they ruled on HOW they did it.  HOW they did it was unconstitutional. And yes, HOW they did it was immoral and racist.

post #12 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

Certain kinds of people are far less likely to be carrying an illegal weapon, and certain other kinds are people are not.

 

 

The former police chief disagrees with you, and has some compelling numbers to back up his claims. There are many who will tell you racial profiling works.

 

 

FWIW, 53 + 35 = 88. 88 < 97.

 


 

Thread moved. It's no longer about Donald Sterling.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post

Ok, one more word.

I firmly believe in targeted profiling; it's an effective crime-fighting tool. It was stupid to search little old white ladies before boarding flights.

And black people on their lunch breaks on Wall St weren't being targeted for stop and frisk. Other factors besides race went into the officers' decision, clothing, behavior, among other things.

Profile the people more likely to commit the crime you're trying to prevent. Serial killers are largely white and male. As such, when developing a profile on an unsolved case, agencies start with that. Makes sense to me.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

So nobody can disagree with the court?
Is it your opinion that racial profiling is ineffective? Immoral? What?

 

Interesting issue.  The Cheif's comment that minorities are involved in 97% of the violent crime, therefore the vast majority of our stops target minorities" is somewhat compelling.  Unfortunately, if that's the sole link, then there is a constitutional problem.

 

Victim reports a robbery (purse-stealing) at gun point.  Her description of the perp is a medium height, medium build black man with a goatee.  She says he was wearing jeans and a blue shirt, but the responding officer knows that she's going to get the shirt color wrong about two-thirds of the time.  What info does the officer have to inform is "reasonable suspicion" to stop and frisk folks for a gun?

 

Apart from skin color, he doesn't have much.  And it's quite clear that the above description doesn't authorize officers to randomly stop black males in the area.  The suspicion has to be particularized towards an individual.  In this case, an officer making Terry stops within a 4-block radius would have skin color, jeans (not a real discriminator), goatee, and location as discriminators.  Beyond that, he has "suspicious behavior" that is completely subjective within the officer's "training and experience."

 

It's a tough issue.  I don't know what the right answer is, other than it's not racism.  The answer could be racism if effectiveness was the only relevent measure, but our values require us to eliminate race as a factor in state decision making.

post #13 of 30
Since we're on a related topic in another thread, thought I'd dust this old one off.

Just heard a stat yesterday that since Stop and Frisk has benn rescinded in NY, approx 3 months, shootings are up 8%. It will only go up from here. Smh
post #14 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post

Since we're on a related topic in another thread, thought I'd dust this old one off.

Just heard a stat yesterday that since Stop and Frisk has benn rescinded in NY, approx 3 months, shootings are up 8%. It will only go up from here. Smh

Shootings do tend to go up in the warmer months. Is 8% more than normal between April and June?
post #15 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post



Shootings do tend to go up in the warmer months. Is 8% more than normal between April and June?

 



Critical thinking at its finest. I have heard that as well -- wasn't looking at a chart, just heard the stat on TV or the radio. But certainly, that could be part of the equation.
post #16 of 30
Lol!
post #17 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by trickyputt View Post

Lol!

And this advances the conversation ... how?
post #18 of 30
Werent you speaking about policy drift?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Stop and Frisk (NYC) and Related Policies