Stop and Frisk - Brooklynian

Stop and Frisk

edited May 2015 in Brooklyn Politics
This discussion was created from comments split from: Shooting on Franklin between Park and Sterling 5/18/15.

Comments

  • I stumbled into a shooting on Fulton Street in Fort Greene two weeks ago, near Habanera Outpost. It was terrifying. It may be politically incorrect to say it, but we are seeing the fruits of the rollback of aggressive policing. Thugs know they can carry weapons more or less with impunity, due to the end of stop and frisk. And they are starting to use them with a frequency reminiscent of the bad old days. Thanks De Blasio and friends.
  • I stumbled into a shooting on Fulton Street in Fort Greene two weeks ago, near Habanera Outpost. It was terrifying. It may be politically incorrect to say it, but we are seeing the fruits of the rollback of aggressive policing. Thugs know they can carry weapons more or less with impunity, due to the end of stop and frisk. And they are starting to use them with a frequency reminiscent of the bad old days. Thanks De Blasio and friends.
    You know, I have a neighbor who grew up here in CH- he says he's been stopped and questioned too many times to count- he's never done anything or had anything (guns/drugs), kid is straight and narrow. He say the cops KNOW who is carrying guns on them but won't do anything about it because they're not about to put their lives on the line. Because many of the cops around here are newbies, I can absolutely see that. 
  • I stumbled into a shooting on Fulton Street in Fort Greene two weeks ago, near Habanera Outpost. It was terrifying. It may be politically incorrect to say it, but we are seeing the fruits of the rollback of aggressive policing. Thugs know they can carry weapons more or less with impunity, due to the end of stop and frisk. And they are starting to use them with a frequency reminiscent of the bad old days. Thanks De Blasio and friends.
    You know there were shootings before, during and there shall be shootings after stop and frisk. It did NOTHING to slow or stop the shootings. It did however harass and illegally strip a bunch of minorities of their civil rights. The city is not going back to the "bad old days." The city is seeing less shootings than ever despite the end of stop and frisk. Not only is your statement extremity politically incorrect and racist it is also very very wrong. 
  • According to this, shootings are indeed up this year:


    While murders may be down this year, as has generally been the trend for the last 10 - 15 (?) years, shootings do seem to be on an upward trend. I guess we have to be grateful that the shooting idiots are bad shots. It's not racist to post the truth. While many people may not have liked stop and frisk, it is ludicrous to state that it did not bring shootings and crime down. I've lived here in Brooklyn since 1969, so I know I'm pretty familiar with when the downward trend picked up steam. 
  • edited May 2015
    According to this, shootings are indeed up this year:


    While murders may be down this year, as has generally been the trend for the last 10 - 15 (?) years, shootings do seem to be on an upward trend. I guess we have to be grateful that the shooting idiots are bad shots. It's not racist to post the truth. While many people may not have liked stop and frisk, it is ludicrous to state that it did not bring shootings and crime down. I've lived here in Brooklyn since 1969, so I know I'm pretty familiar with when the downward trend picked up steam. 
    If your "truth" is about taking the civil rights of many way then yes it is very racist.
  • edited May 2015
    Whether we agree with the Floyd decision or not, it did find the NYPD to be overusing Stop and Frisk on the city's blacks and hispanics, a violation of civil rights:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_v._City_of_New_York

    So, regardless of how effective the practice was in deterring young men from carrying handguns, it can no longer be used by the NYPD to the degree that it once was.

    In my view, the NYPD continues to have lots of tools at its disposal to do its job. If crime soars, the pendulum will likely again swing the other way, toward more police powers.

    However, without the right socio-economic forces, even a "police state" will have a lot of property and violent crime.
  • The truth is the truth. Lying about what the truth is ... well, that's nothing to be proud of.
    While civil rights are certainly a big concern, it does not do anyone any good whatsoever to pretend that stop and frisk did not bring crime levels down dramatically. The truth is not, in and of itself, racist. Since the primary targets of shootings here are minorities, the greatest beneficiaries of the dramatic decrease in shootings and murders over the years have been those same minorities. Is it racist to have saved those lives?

    I sort of wonder how many years some of you have been around here (not around Brooklynian, but NYC in general). 
  • edited May 2015
    The truth is the truth. Lying about what the truth is ... well, that's nothing to be proud of.
    While civil rights are certainly a big concern, it does not do anyone any good whatsoever to pretend that stop and frisk did not bring crime levels down dramatically. The truth is not, in and of itself, racist. Since the primary targets of shootings here are minorities, the greatest beneficiaries of the dramatic decrease in shootings and murders over the years have been those same minorities. Is it racist to have saved those lives?

    I sort of wonder how many years some of you have been around here (not around Brooklynian, but NYC in general). 
    Of course if I lived in NYC for as long as you had I I'd acknowledge racism as truth. The truth is that stop and frisk took the civil rights of a large number of young minorities. Maybe back in 1969 it was ok to harass a young blackman based on his skin color but in 2015 that no longer flies. Do you have hard evidence that stop and frisk saved lives? I think not. However, a quick Google search shows how many lives have been damaged by stop frisk. You have only established a coincidental llink between stop and frisk and an uptick in shootings.
  • If crime soars, the pendulum will likely again swing the other way, toward more police powers.

    However, without the right socio-economic forces, even a "police state" will have a lot of property and violent crime.
    I wouldn't bet on this being true. Recent events around the country have shown except for die hards the general public will no longer tolerate oppressive and racist policing. The days of blatant racism being tolerated are fast coming to a close.
  • Interesting theory. But crime stats show a decline in all areas. Facts are damn annoying things.
  • edited May 2015
    When one looks at zip codes, the decline of violent crime is closely correlated to higher levels of wealth, education and employment.

    When one looks at the sale of ice cream, as the sale if it increases and decreases, crime often occurs in tandem.
  • In community board 8, all categories of crime declined or were stable this past month versus a year ago. I'm not sure who tracks ice cream sales.
  • edited May 2015
    Looking at a crime given month in CB8 in 2015 vs 2014 may have some value, and its nice that the NYPD tracks this for us.

    Ice cream sales vs crime correlations have to be done on our own, but their are guides to assist us:
    http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/11894_Chapter_5.pdf

    The pros of the exercise are that the correlation is often quite strong, and one can eat ice cream while calculating.

    Can one eat ice cream while attending the 77th Precinct Council Meetings, or in the venues CB8 mtgs are often held?
  • Ok, one cannot say, "The police stopped this particular man and prevented that particular shooting." It is significant that as the use of stop and frisk increased, crime in general and murders, particularly by gunshot, dramatically decreased. Have you any idea how many deaths by gunshot there were each year back during the days of Koch and Dinkins? 
    It is one thing to decry the inherent unfairness to black males (particularly) by the S&F policy. It is quite another to be unwilling to admit that it made no difference in the crime level here. Since well over 2000 people per year were killed in NYC years back. Nowadays, there are about 20% of the 1990 high point. If you will do a little research, you will see that the largest group of murder victims were blacks. So, S&F has saved black lives. Nothing racist about that. Also, it has been the great decrease in murders, and crime in NYC in general, that has attracted hordes of young hipsters from their backwater, boring home towns to the City. They then complain that the NYC streets are too busy for them.

    As to my initial point, shootings are up this year, whether or not they are up in a single police precinct. As Daniel Moynahan said (more or less) years ago, everyone's entitled to his own opinion, not to his own facts.
  • edited May 2015
    What people blame for causing crime tends to change over time. This survey compares opinions in 1996 vs 1977: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/public-perspective/ppscan/84/84014.pdf

    It would be interesting to see what a representative sample of Brooklynites attribute crime to in 2015.
  • I don't inherently think that there is anything wrong with the concept of stop and frisk. However, the application of it is where the problem lies. As @whatchuwant said earlier, cops who are on the streets regularly absolutely know who are most likely to have weapons. They see the same people regularly and hear the same names. But its easier (and statistically safer) for them to stop random people that they have had no contact with, put them up against the side of a building, and frisk them than it is to approach people that probably have weapons and might actually be inclined to pull that weapon. The same guys have been selling drugs on these corners for YEARS. I've seen kids go from attending 138 to hanging on Nostrand Avenue to peddling wares over the last decade. There is no way that cops who work in the neighborhood that have been on foot patrol on Nostrand during that same period don't know what's going on. But busting those kids is work. Snatching a random teen that they've never seen before or grabbing one of the many middle-aged West Indian construction workers/laborers that are hanging out in the cellars on Nostrand after work is easy. And up until recently if they caught those people with a little weed it was a guaranteed win for them.

    I don't mind stop and frisk, if it means that cops are going to actually make RANDOM stops. That means you stop everyone: old white ladies, hassidic moms with baby carriages, young black women, asian guys with messenger bags and headphones. But when the starting and ending point for selection for stops is black, then you have the situation we have in NYC where black criminality is the assumed default and whites are positioned as always being law-abiding and above suspicion.
  • edited May 2015
    Some people seem to believe that the Floyd decision is far more reaching than it actually is, and that the NYPD is no longer allowed to stop people without probable cause.

    In actuality, the right of the police to make such stops is quite well established: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

    The ruling addressed the manner in which the stops were being conducted.

    That said, I can't imagine how massive a "random" program would have to be to effectively dissuade someone who presently believes carrying a firearm and resolving a dispute with it is a good idea.
  • The monitors assigned to ensure the NYPD's compliance to the Floyd decision have published their first quarterly report:


    whynot_31—

    In March, a New York federal court appointed Demos as co-class counsel in Floyd v. the City of New York,
    the landmark case challenging the NYPD’s use of stop and frisk. As
    counsel, Demos represents the interests of the mostly Black and Latino
    residents who have been or will be unlawfully stopped by the NYPD.

    Earlier today, the Federal Monitor appointed by the court to oversee reforms in the case made public his first status report on the development of those reforms. In the initial period of the remedial process, we have made progress. Our hardest work lies ahead.

    The Floyd
    remedial process will develop comprehensive reforms to address what
    went wrong with the NYPD’s use of stop and frisk. The process includes
    two parts: (1) negotiations among the Monitor, the NYPD, the plaintiffs
    and certain community stakeholders that develop immediate reforms; and
    (2) community input forums that will guide a final and more complete
    package of reforms. The Monitor is responsible for managing the remedial
    process on behalf of the court and for ensuring the NYPD complies with
    the reforms ultimately developed. The Monitor’s status report is a
    summary of the first six months of the remedial process from his
    perspective.

    Trainings
    are the highlight so far. Together with the Monitor and the plaintiffs,
    the NYPD developed and implemented new police academy trainings that
    include critical education on racial profiling, like a repeated refrain
    that “a generic suspect description, by itself, such as ‘young black
    male’” is not a lawful reason to stop someone.

    The
    trainings should equip recruits with an understanding of the
    constitutional limitations on their authority during street encounters
    and test their working knowledge of the NYPD’s new anti-racial profiling
    lessons.

    These are good steps.

    What
    comes next is perhaps more important. Trainings and paper policies only
    go so far if police culture condones constitutional abuses. Stop and
    frisk will not be fixed until the NYPD on paper and in practice treats
    all New Yorkers equally in street encounters.

    While
    we move forward with this work and while you gauge the NYPD’s
    improvement, remember that the number of reported stops is a partial
    picture of what’s happening on the streets. As the Monitor reveals in
    his status report, an NYPD audit appears to confirm what members of the
    public have been saying for months: police are not reporting all stops
    being conducted.

    In the months ahead, Demos will work with Floyd
    lead counsel the Center for Constitutional Rights and co-counsel
    Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP and Covington & Burling LLP to
    advance reforms that address officer supervision, officer
    accountability, and the monitoring and auditing of police activity. We
    will continue to work to ensure the people most affected by the NYPD’s
    unconstitutional practices—that is, Black and brown people long
    subjected to stops because of their race—have a voice in developing
    reforms.

    Thanks,



    Jenn Rolnick Borchetta

    Senior Counsel, Demos

    Detailed report:     http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/imce/Floyd Monitors Report 7 9 2015.pdf?utm_source=Demos&utm_campaign=53c71e21ff-Floyd_Follow_Up7_9_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e07d7f6936-53c71e21ff-64797109
Sign In or Register to comment.