Posted on 03/25/2013 7:02:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A fiendishly deceptive article about the New York Police Department in the New York Times has set back the cause of public safety not just in New York but nationally. A front-page story on Friday twisted a police commander’s exhortation to an underperforming officer to work harder against crime into an injunction to target blacks on the basis of race. The commander’s statements were captured on a tape secretly recorded by the officer and replayed last Thursday during a federal racial-profiling trial directed against the New York Police Department’s stop, question, and frisk policy. The officer had already joined the lawsuit when he made the recording and was patently trying to goad the commander into making a statement that could be used in the litigation. As I explain here, Officer Pedro Serrano failed in his effort to elicit anything remotely approaching a racial-profiling mandate from Deputy Inspector Christopher McCormack, who is shown in the recording to be fiercely committed to protecting the overwhelmingly black and Hispanic residents of his South Bronx precinct and who explicitly repudiates stopping people on the basis of race, rather than criminal behavior. It didn’t matter. The Times finished the job for Serrano, making it seem that McCormack had said the opposite of what he had actually said. (Readers can now compare the Times account of the episode with the actual transcript and decide for themselves.)
Just to make sure that the damage was irrevocable, the Times followed up the next day with an editorial that was even more duplicitous than the article on which it was based. Titled “Walking While Black in New York,” the editorial strips whatever meager context the Friday article had included that might have allowed a highly determined reader to hazily glimpse the truth behind the Times’ distortions: that McCormack was referring to an ongoing, local string of robberies perpetrated by young male blacks when he responded to Serrano’s increasingly aggressive racial provocations with the phrases: “The problem was, what, male blacks. And I told you at roll call, and I have no problem telling you this, [the problem was] male blacks 14 to 20, 21.” It is perfectly appropriate to mention suspects’ race when police are looking for actual perpetrators who have been identified by their victims, but “Walking While Black” displays a breathtakingly juvenile determination to eliminate all facts that stand in the way of the all-consuming agenda to demonize the police.
If the Times honored its by now-dubious status as the newspaper of record, it would run a correction. But even if it did, it would come too late to help the police. Sharpton, the NAACP, and the ACLU are labeling McCormack’s remarks the NYPD’s “smoking gun” and are calling for his suspension, despite his strong backing from the actual residents of the South Bronx. But this is about more than one hard-working commander’s slandered reputation or the ability of the NYPD to preserve its record-breaking crime drop. The conceit that McCormack has revealed the truth about proactive policing will become gospel in anti-cop circles nationwide, making it even harder for police everywhere to do their jobs, due to political pressure from above and street resistance from below.
On March 6 of this year, I attended a community council meeting in the NYPD’s 40th Precinct, where Deputy Inspector McCormack presides. A former Marine named Duwon urgently called for more vigorous policing. He travels to the Bronx from Brooklyn to escort his mother to cash her Social Security payments, he said, because she is terrified of the addicts and youth milling on the corners. “If she ever fell, they’d pick her dry,” he observed.
The Times’ writers and publishers will likely not notice much of a difference (at least initially) if the current campaign against New York’s stop, question, and frisk policy succeeds. Times staffers overwhelmingly live in safe neighborhoods where shootings are merely theoretical. But law-abiding residents of inner-city neighborhoods know that effective policing is a life-and-death matter, and thus passionately support law enforcement. The NYPD works around the clock to provide upstanding members of poor communities the same freedom from fear that affluent areas take for granted. The Times’ preposterous conceit of “walking while black” will only widen the crime gap that, despite the NYPD’s unmatched success in fighting crime, still separates the cozy enclaves of white liberals and the hard streets that continue to blight too many striving inner-city lives.
Know what else the cops do?
It’s illegal to walk from train car to train car. They wait off to the side to grab people. I have seen with my own eyes the racial profiling that goes on there.
You see it comes with a $75.00 ticket and guess what? They never ever stop a black. Not ever. I would bet money they’re told not to.
They profile in everything they do and it’s 100% wrong.
Stop and Frisk is in the Florida statutes.
Crime rates have been trending downward across the U.S. for decades.
They don’t do stop and frisk in Chicago?
RE: Heck Miami doesn’t either.
Miami’s violent crime rate is the highest in the nation, with especially high incidences of robbery and assault. Thankfully, the murder rate is relatively low.
See here:
Worst Large Cities for Crime (>500,000 pop.)
http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime1.aspx
So you support Cops searching people “randomly”?
RE: It works, but it is unconstitutional.
Well, so should cops giving you a ticket for allegedly going through a stop sign, without showing proof ( such as a video camera ).
But then, judges almost always side with the cops and you pay.
Black people have the RIGHT to commit any crime they want. Didn’t you get the memo?
A policeman (or anyone else) witnessing a crime is evidence. And disputing such evidence is mostly a matter of conflicting evidence.
Your implication is that cops are mistaken or lie and that you don't get the benefit of the doubt. That is a separate issue altogether.
Stop and Frisk is not evidenced based at all. It is a gross violation of the 4th amendment.
As I said, its unconstitutional.
They probably do, but not as an intentional method for reducing crime as it's used in NYC.
RE: So you support Cops searching people “randomly”?
In a city where gun control is tough? YES.
If the city would relax its gun control laws, NO.
You can’t have it both ways. You gotta have one or the other.
And I must add — I’ve been profiled and stopped once because the car I drove fit the profile.
I was polite, showed the officer all my papers, and was let go in 10 minutes. No harm, no foul.
Based on, but not in compliance with, that decision (Terry v. Ohio).
And all of the big (> 1m population) cities have higher homicide and violent crime - including robbery and rape - rates per capita than NYC.
A stop is justified if the suspect is exhibiting any combination of the following behaviors:
Appears not to fit the time or place.
Matches the description on a “Wanted” flyer.
Acts strangely, or is emotional, angry, fearful, or intoxicated.
Loitering, or looking for something.
Running away or engaging in furtive movements.
Present in a crime scene area.
Present in a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering).
A frisk is justified under the following circumstances:
Concern for the safety of the officer or of others.
Suspicion the suspect is armed and dangerous.
Suspicion the suspect is about to commit a crime where a weapon is commonly used.
Officer is alone and backup has not arrived.
Number of suspects and their physical size.
Behavior, emotional state, and/or look of suspects.
Suspect gave evasive answers during the initial stop.
Time of day and/or geographical surroundings (not sufficient by themselves to justify frisk).
I am not the sort of person who would totally NEUTER the police, leaving them helpless and unable to use their instincts to fight crime. That’s MAINLY what I pay my taxes for.
When used correctly, the stop and frisk tool benefits the police and average citizens. Curbing crime and ensuring the safety of our on-the-beat public servants, stop and frisk can help us all sleep a little more soundly.
We'll find out soon enough - minority activists are gearing up for a Supreme Court challenge, the idea being that too many minorities are being arrested who should be at Yale rather in jail.
Actually other sources show a different story. Numerous cities have lower murder rates then NYC.
Amazing to see so many people supporting random searches without cause. Kinda sad really.
Probable cause for a Constitutional search occurs when a policeman witnesses a crime or witnesses evidence of a crime.
For stop and frisk, this is reduced to “They didn’t belong” and “He seemed irritated when I stopped him.”
The Left’s new definition of personal rights is that those rights simply don’t exist outside of certain geographic confines, such as your home or place of worship.
A frisk is justified under the following circumstances:
Concern for the safety of the officer or of others.
in others words 100% of the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.