NYC cops tell the real story behind Stop and Frisk.
Skip to comments.Bloomberg apologist makes no pretense of reasonable suspicion for stop-and-frisk
Posted on 08/15/2013 1:38:24 PM PDT by marktwain
Yesterday, in reference to a federal court ruling that found New York City's hyper-aggressive "stop-and-frisk" policy--ostensibly to combat "gun violence"--both blatantly unconstitutional and blatantly racist, this column noted what might be the most unforgivable aspect of Mayor Bloomberg's and the NYPD's jihad:
Perhaps most egregiously, one defense of the policy is that the objective is not really to catch criminals in the act (of carrying contraband--specifically guns). The idea behind stopping hundreds of thousands of blacks and Hispanics per year--the vast majority of them innocent--is to instill fear in every member of these ethnic groups--fear that they will be stopped-and-frisked, so they had better obey New York's mandated defenselessness edicts.
Incredibly, John Podhoretz. writing for the New York Post, and just as outraged over the court decision as Bloomberg and NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly are, freely admits to seeing this (intimidation of entire ethnic groups, via police harassment of the innocent) as the point of NYPD's "stop-and-frisk" crusade--and enthusiastically approves:
Now, its certainly a boon to seize illegal weaponry, especially since career criminals are almost always the people in possession of it. But in terms of overall public safety, the confiscation of guns and knives is really just a bonus.
In point of fact, stop-and-frisk is of enormous value because it creates a deterrent effect an effect that will only work if the policy is applied very broadly.
Well, no one can accuse the NYPD of not applying the policy "very broadly" (except, of course, among white people), with over half a million stops per year--and over half a million of those stopped being black or Hispanic.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
A LOT of “conservatives”, like the deluded individuals who supported the “Patriot” Act, think this is a great idea. Stop and check all those minority hoodlums in those bad neighborhoods and keep the crime rate down. FOX was on the badwagon calling in one flatfoot “expert” after another to justifiy it.
But its plain wrong. If there is REASONABLE suspicion to stop and check somebody out that is ONE thing, i.e. if they appear to be involved in illegal activity or resemble a fugitive.
But to give the police the right to profile Americans radnomly on the basis of mere appearance, stop them, detain the, and frisk them is police-state nonesense.
This is the very thinking that has Homeland “Security” checking out little kids and old Swedish-American ladies from Minnesota instead of checking out obvious MUSLIMS at airport terminals.
People who support this just don’t understand Freedom and Liberty or what it means to be an American.
I didn’t have a problem with the policy. However, I know where this is going.
NAACP complains and all of a sudden blacks are no longer getting frisked. Only whites are. After a few years of that, it becomes SOP.
Better to kill it entirely.
NYC cops tell the real story behind Stop and Frisk.
I'm waiting for one of those media hacks to come out and say that the problem isn't that too many minorities are being searched, it's that not enough whites are being searched and they need to do more of that. Until it gets turned on them, ala limbaugh with his "not enough white people in prison for drug abuse" spiel that came back around to bite him in the ass.
Yes, it was disturbing to tune in the “The Five” yesterday on FOX and find only Bob Beckle on the side of freedom.
No, not lucky for you if you’re a New Yorker.
The police never stopped and frisked people on the basis of their ethnicity: it was on the basis of their behavior, just as it was in the case of Trayvon Martin.
Many black and Hispanic livery cab drivers in NYC are armed, and I’m sure the NYPD is perfectly aware of this...and they’re not stopped and frisked. But the 14 year old (who had already shot somebody a year before) hanging out in a known drug location at 2:00 a.m. probably will be stopped and frisked.
It’s a pity the 14 yr old shot last week wasn’t stopped and frisked. He was shooting at another kid in the course of a drug deal and then turned his gun on the cops - but of course, according to his auntie, he was such a sweet boy.
I agree. The celebrity/ruling class spoke... I lost respect for everyone but Beckle.
They are only stopping those with what has been defined as reasonable suspicion. They are in a high-crime area, match the description of search/wanted flyers, and are either loitering or acting furtively, at the least:
One thing I wish courts would do is recognize that effective protection of Fourth Amendment rights requires not only that before stopping anyone police must have not only "reasonable suspicion", but articulable suspicion. A person who could plausibly believe that the police have no legitimate reasonable basis for suspicion of criminal activity should be not be required to submit to a search unless or until police articulate a sufficient basis for such suspicion that a reasonable person would believe the police suspicion legitimate. Further, even in cases where police might legitimately search a suspect for immediately-accessible weapons, that does not imply a right to "notice" anything else they might find.