Posted on 02/17/2020 3:43:21 AM PST by Kaslin
Only in the weird world of ‘woke’ would Michael Bloomberg come under such intense fire for arguably his most significant accomplishment while serving as the Republican mayor of New York City - managing to keep the densely populated city’s crime rate in check. Well, it’s not so much the accomplishment itself that’s causing quite the stir, but rather the, er, less than ‘woke’ tactics he used to get the job done.
Political correctness being what it is, of course, the billionaire businessman had to apologize and back off the whole stop-and-frisk business early in his campaign. It was a ‘mistake’ don’t you know, because he didn’t understand the impact blah blah blah (you know the drill) … And it seemed, for the most part, that he’d gotten a pass. That is, until Bloomberg’s rationale for the policy came to light again last week via some quotes from a speech he gave from 2015, not so long ago in actual time but light years ago in terms of how far down the rabbit hole we’ve descended.
“Ninety-five percent of murders, murderers and murder victims fit one M.O.,” Bloomberg said in a 2015 speech to the Aspen Institute. “You can just take a description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city.”
“One of the unintended consequences is people say, ‘Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities,’” he continued. “Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is.”
Bloomberg was naturally slammed as a “racist” for daring to use ‘hate facts’ to reason through his policy, although nobody to this day has made clear exactly what other ‘facts’ would justify focusing on black neighborhoods to the extent that the NYPD did during that time. A real racist would do exactly the opposite, of course. A real racist would just let those neighborhoods burn themselves down, innocent victims be damned. But no, like him or not, Bloomberg at the time dared to believe that black lives do matter, and he went about doing what he thought was the best way to actually save innocent ones during his mayoral tenure.
Now, predictably, the now-Democratic presidential candidate is forced to pretend that reality doesn’t exist: “There is one aspect of approach that I deeply regret, the abuse of police practice called stop-and-frisk," Bloomberg said. "I defended it, looking back, for too long because I didn't understand then the unintended pain it was causing to young black and brown families and their kids. I should have acted sooner and faster to stop it. I didn't, and for that I apologize."
That’s right, folks. Being forced to apologize for saving black lives is exactly where we are, circa 2020. What Bloomberg failed to say in all his hostage-video-like apologies is that any of the statements he made to justify stop-and-frisk were not true. Granted, there are arguably Constitutional issues with the practice itself, but not necessarily for police focus on high crime areas. However, legality is only part of what’s been getting Bloomberg in trouble these days. The real hornets’ nest lies in where the majority of actual stopping and frisking is taking place. Seemingly, leftists who otherwise love the idea of a police state would have no problem if the policy were being enacted in middle and upper class neighborhoods, golf courses or retirement homes, even if the odds are slim to none that any fruit would come of police efforts in such places. No, the left is in a tizzy because those poor neighborhoods where the stopping and frisking was happening just happen to be majority African-American and Hispanic. And no matter how many innocent lives are saved, we can’t have that.
I’m no Bloomberg fan, not by a long shot, but perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this whole matter is the criticism coming at the former NYC mayor from President Donald Trump and some of his supporters. Trump posted, then deleted a tweet calling Bloomberg a “total racist,” then backed up that contention in an appearance with Geraldo Rivera. White House advisor Kellyanne Conway, pressed on this by Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, who showed her a video of Trump in 2016 specifically praising stop-and-frisk, smiled and contended Trump was “toying with everybody” because we all know what would happen had similar comments been made by the president.
Maybe so, but this isn’t a political point Trump World is going to win. In fact, by pressing it and trying to label Bloomberg as a “racist” for citing, back before the world lost what was already left of its damn mind, perfectly logical reasons behind the policy, the president and his team come off as disingenuous. Plus, they’re caving to the left’s definition of what is and isn’t ‘moral.’ We know Donald Trump supported the stop-and-frisk. We know he’d probably support it now. And we know the reasons why. Why pretend?
The next mayor, a radical left-wing Democrat, ended the policy and presumably the focus on high-crime neighborhoods, and predictably the crime rate has and will continue to spike. As atonement for his ‘sins,’ Bloomberg promised to “work to dismantle systems that are plagued by bias and discrimination” and “invest in the communities that borne the brunt of those systems for generations,” or something.
Will any black lives be saved? Of course not, because the left has always been more about controlling lives than actually working to save them.
Wouldn’t carrying a Big Gulp be reasonable suspicion to stop and search in Mike’s world? That’d be a lovely question to ask him directly.
If a rat tells something close to the truth, they are done. The dem party will eat them alive. He will still be a player because of his money, but I think he will keep falling just short of the 15% required to get delegates.
When he first instituted it, I thought it was completely unconstitutional. Still do.
I’m all for aggressive policing but at least have reasonable cause or an outstanding warrant.
Agree that Blowme’s cowardice to defend his gestapo tactics is what is doing him in. Mr. “throw them against the wall” Toughguy is now Mr. “I’m sorry. I’ve evolved” Mary Poppins.
Nobody even seems to care about that angle: Stop and frisk is unconstitutional. If you declare martial law, then have at it - but don’t just do it as business as usual.
The ends only justified the means to many people because THEY weren’t the target.
[In this case, I could less whether Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk was a good idea or not (it certainly worked), what should matter to us, ONLY, is that the black community HATED the policy, and that gives us leverage (huge leverage) to weaken Bloomberg.]
[There is no prize for 2nd place. You beat the heck out of them with everything you can.
It’s not about the facts, it’s about the perception and Trump understands this. I wish more people on our side understood that.]
You either believe in the Constitution or you do not - there is no “Noble Cause” clause in it.
While it’s nice to let the Dems “eat their own”, and their reasoning has more to do with “racism”, this is one of the few times they are right to criticize and I want a President who will not be afraid to state the obvious and politics be damned.
We have libertarians greatly exaggerating the problems with stop and frisk. As if small inconvenience and bruised egos were the equivalent of blacks being lynched, conservative students suffering outright censorship, or Republicans being denied equal protection of the police. NYC cops haven’t been a significant source of civil liberty problems since the days of Tammany Hall.
I think the criticism has to do with the way he expressed the frisk, not the frisk itself.
I’d be more concerned with the goa or the nra for not coming to the defense of new yorkers. Did they simply turn a blind eye to this overreach?
Further, Bloomberg appears to have supported it for some problematic reasons, which also suggest he didn’t understand the policy run under his administration.
1) he didn’t institute it.
2) the policy includes reasonable cause.
3) Bloomberg clearly doesn’t understand the policy.
I agree with this premise.
Frisking was way down the list, and was only done in a relatively small portion of “stop, question, and frisk” stops. By the time police got to the frisking point, the proportion of arrests was pretty high.
Heather McDonald had some very good articles which should give you a better explanation of what the policy actually was - or you could talk to some NYC non-criminals. Beginning with Giuliani, police were moved out into their neighborhoods and got to know the locals. It wasn’t random police just spotting people walking down the road and frisking them.
No question he did the right thing re. stop and frisk, but he leaves himself wide open to be criticized for apologizing to gain favor with the black community. Go get ‘em Trump.
1. Yes he did. He was the mayor.
2. No it doesn’t.
3. Totally agree.
“When he first instituted it, I thought it was completely unconstitutional. Still do.”
Agree. For all those supporting Bloomberg on S&F, would you support it in your own neighborhood?
1) he inherited it from Giuliani. Deblasio mutated it I to something else, at which point it was thrown out by the court.
2) it absolutely included reasonable cause. It’s an explicit step, and the only reason the policy was allowed - especially in NY.
“Stop and frisk is unconstitutional.”
Unfortunately while my own knowledge of the constitution is not great I do have a copy and I do look up things so I estimate that my own limited knowledge exceeds that of ninety percent or more of Americans, many of whom can “quote” things that appear nowhere in the document. I believe your comment on stop and frisk is correct but I would say that well over fifty percent of the population believes that whatever they personally favor is constitutional and whatever they disapprove is forbidden by the constitution.
You’re right; people feel the end justifies the means. The Fourth Amendment right to privacy is thrown out the window if it gets guns off the streets, and it is urban thugs being targeted.
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.