Racial profiling to enhance public safety

[mvccd1000]

Although racial profiling is cause for boycotts in other states, it's apparently acceptable when used in support of public safety in NYC.

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP98b6e8a2f396476487f069c62d06f4b5.html

NEW YORK — The latest numbers show the New York Police Department's skyrocketing street stops increased to more than 200,000 stops during the first three months of 2012.

The NYPD says officers stopped people on New York City's streets 203,500 times from January through March. That's up from 183,326 during the same quarter last year.

The policy allows an officer to stop a person based on reasonable suspicion, which is lower than that of probable cause needed to justify an arrest.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the practice has gotten guns off the streets and saved lives. The city's number of murders is expected to be a record low of less than 500 this year.

Critics say the police department is unfairly targeting minorities.

I'm curious to see if any of our posters who support removing guns from the public support this method of doing so?

[Taitertots]

1. Any crimes they stopped are just replaced by the government committing much worse crimes...

I'd say having the government freely violating people's rights is a far worse crime than a few minorities having guns or drugs.

[TPaine7]

7. Government crimes aren't crimes. Did you learn nothing from that liberal hero, Nixon?

He has many secret disciples, hereabouts.

[krispos42]

2. Well, if it saves one life...

...it's worth shredding the Constitution. It's more important to be alive than free.

[TPaine7]

6. Careful now. Respect for the Constitution and the rule of law is know around here as "freedumb"

by our ethically and morally challenged "betters."

[ManiacJoe]

3. While racial profiling is useless, profiling works quite well.

The posted article is useless as it does not even attempt to describe the methods used.

[Meiko]

4. Everytime

a cop makes a stop he is racially profiling. The race and sex of the suspect is always a key factor when a call comes into the cops on patrol. How else are you going to know who to look for.

[TPaine7]

5. Getting a call about a 5'11" black male with dreadlocks who just held up a bank and then stopping a

suspect who meets that description is not profiling.

Selecting that same male for a pat down when he is minding his business on the street and you have no particular probable cause to suspect a crime is a criminal violation of his rights.

Equal protection of the laws is a joke in NY and their thug of a Mayor and the commissioner, as well as the police force, are criminals who think themselves above the law. Just my not so humble opinion.

But gun controllers tend to love (or at least be willing to tolerate) almost any lengths to which criminal authoritarianism is taken, so long as it is against the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

[iverglas]

8. really?

Last edited Mon May 14, 2012, 02:57 AM - Edit history (1)

But gun controllers tend to love (or at least be willing to tolerate) almost any lengths to which criminal authoritarianism is taken, so long as it is against the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

And yet the only quarter this silly noise is coming from is yours. Unless, maybe, you can quote somebody relevant on this point.


formatting fixed

[TPaine7]

9. There's one, who you know well, who compared a policeman threatening to "put lumps" on a woman

if he saw her again to a mother threatening her beloved child.

You see, the cop in question was coming down on a LEGAL gun carrier, and therefore needed defending by any means (read sophistry) necessary.

Now I can't quote the sophist in question, as her post was deleted for being too disgusting to be tolerated in this place. But, if the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field will permit you to remember, that should be an example close enough to home.

As I said...

gun controllers tend to love (or at least be willing to tolerate) almost any lengths to which criminal authoritarianism is taken,

And that even includes criminal threats of violence by a hulking, thuggish "officer of the law" against a clearly unresisting woman. And this was compared to a toothless threat by a loving mother! By a "feminist"!

Anything for the Field, right iverglas?

Of course many people who read this won't have read (or won't remember) the exchange in question. So you can pretend not to know what I'm talking about.

Of course the eeeeevil NRA working with the racist, misogynistic, knuckle dragging, right wing lunatics--who don't believe that cops get to make violent threats and that badges don't justify thuggishness--got that fine gentleman fired. It had nothing to do with his "mothering" skills being illegal and indefensible.

Silly noise, indeed.

[iverglas]

10. if you'll let us know what language you're speaking

I can probably find a tool that will translate it for us.

[TPaine7]

11. LOL! English always did confuse you.

What does "assert" mean, iverglas?

Yawn...

I guess playing dumb was your strongest option.

I'm bored now.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. For those who 'forgot', here's a few threads where police thuggery is denied, then defended...

...when it could no longer be denied:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x442627

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x436480

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x438548#438609

[Meiko]

12. I will agree with that

This jacking people up for no reason is pure BS. It goes on everyday though.

[ellisonz]

13. Depends how reasonable suspicion is constructed...

...this BTW is why I favor California's system of gang injunctions.

[DragonBorn]

14. Are you serious?

It's almost always minorities stopped and frisked and its for little to no reason. If they did have actual probable cause they would find drugs and weapons at a far higher rate.

"In 2011, in New York City, 685,724 people were stopped, 84 percent of whom were Black and Latino residents — although they comprise only about 23 percent and 29 percent of New York City’s total population respectively. "
http://ccrjustice.org/stopandfrisk

In one sentence alone you can see the blatant discrimination.

"In 2011, 88 percent of all stops did not result in an arrest or a summons being given. Contraband was found in only 2 percent of all stops. The NYPD claims their stop and frisk policy keeps weapons off the street – but weapons were recovered in only one percent of all stops. These numbers clearly contradict that claim. "

So out of almost 700 thousand people only 6,857 people had weapons, which isn't even to say they had guns. Knives are the most common weapon found in these stop and frisks. I'm sorry but as a minority that works in NYC everyday I find this absolutely ridiculous, please tell me if and how you can justify degrading 700 hundred thousand minorities just so a few can feel safer.

[ellisonz]

15. You're misreading me...

I don't support profiling on the basis of race, but profiling is certainly part of basic police work. What is clear here is that the way this policy is currently being operated is ineffective. That's why I said I favor gang injunctions. The police know who the gang members are and where they congregate, associate with known gang members and that's clear basis for "reasonable suspicion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_injunction

[DragonBorn]

16. Misunderstanding

The NYPD has no reasonable suspicion in more than 90% of these cases. I thought you were implying that the NYPD's suspicion and actions where reasonable.

[ellisonz]

17. I think there's clear evidence these searches are not being conducted reasonably...

...but it is a lawful police practice for a reason, in some instances it clearly works. The NYPD needs to review its policies and train its officers better. If I was the NYPD, I would focus on known gang members and those on parole.

[DragonBorn]

18. It works?

You call a 3% success rate "clearly working"? What about that other 97% of the time when they didn't find anything or the hundreds of thousands of minorities who's rights have been violated. Name for me another program or action with a 3% success rate that can be described as "clearly working".

Oh and lawful practice, I'd disagree with that it just hasn't been proven unlawful. Difference.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/11/bloomberg

"As described by Bloomberg, the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program is justified not by individualized suspicion but by its general deterrent effect. It therefore appears to be unconstitutional under the relevant precedents."


Read the article it helps shed light on the issue.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. I seldom find nor can I construct more concise example of irony

From the OP:
"The latest numbers show the New York Police Department's skyrocketing street stops increased to more than 200,000 stops during the first three months of 2012."

Oath of Office:

I solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of New York, and the Charter of the City of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of mayor of the City of New York, to the best of my ability.

From the Bill of Rights, Constitution of the State of New York:

Section 11
No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)


Section 12
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and identifying the particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938)