New York mayor Mike Bloomberg recently defended his controversial "stop and frisk" policy, which allows police to stop and search people on the street without cause. The policy, said the mayor, "should be mended, not ended."
On The Ed Show Monday, Donna Lieberman of the New York Civil Liberties Union said the NYPD's approach is racially biased.
"The NYPD isn’t stopping suspected criminals, they're stopping suspected black and Latino people," said Lieberman. "And that’s racial profiling and its illegal."
In response, the Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald denied that race is involved.
"Race has nothing to do with the way the NYPD developed its tactics," said Mac Donald. "It's going into neighborhoods where people are being most victimized by crime. That crime is what drives where the police go. And nothing has had as large an effect in saving minority lives as the New York Proactive Policing."
But Lieberman said stop and frisk doesn't just happen in heavily minority neighborhoods.
"It's not just in communities of color, unfortunately, black and Latino people are profiled wherever they go in the city," Lieberman pointed out. "In Park Slope, which has a vast majority of white people, blacks and Latinos constitute way more than a majority that are stopped and frisked. The same is true in the West Village in Manhattan. So this isn’t about communities with high populations of color. This is about a policy that follows black and Latino people wherever they go in the city. And it's about stopping them and throwing them up against the wall whether they’ve done something wrong or not."
Leave a Comment:
If you've been watching MSNBC the past couple of days you may have noticed that Melissa Harris-Perry's Show paid a lot of attention to the Stop and Frisk laws in New York City and how they are applied by the New York City Police Department. You may also have watched The Ed Show this evening in which Professor Dyson was sitting in for Ed Shultz. He also addressed the Stop and Frisk issue with two guests - one a progressive activist opposed to what she sees as racial profiling and the other a representative of the Mayor of New York.
First of all, I am a fan of both Ms Perry and Professor Dyson, although sometimes their stated political positions are much more progressive than mine. This is one of those moments when I found myself screaming at the television in disbelief and utter confusion. How in the world could two prominent, well-spoken, highly intelligent and seemingly rational professional educators, irrespective of their political agendas, take a stance that is so obviously flawed?
I initially sat there watching Ms Perry twist the Stop and Frisk initiative of the New York Police Department into a study in intentional, unabashed racial profiling. She consistently argued that the tactics by NYPD was a study in how to be insensitive and hateful toward the African American community, stopping innocent young men for no apparent reason who were doing nothing more than being Black. I had every intention of registering my disagreement with Ms Perry via a blog or on FB directly after that broadcast. Family matters prevented me from making a post at that time, although I had it on my mind most of that day.
Then I turn on the MSNBC lineup today and heard essentially the same argument from Professor Dyson's guest claiming that it is a violation of the civil rights of young Black men who are being targeted, profiled, harassed, degraded, and vilified although they are innocent and just happened to be where the NYPD could snatch them up.
The counter argument was made by the Mayor Bloomberg's representative who stated the facts, some of which included the fact that it is the Black community that is suffering from the random violence; that it is the innocent residents of the African American community that benefit from aggressive police procedures that mitigate the potential for a violent act on the part of Black youth, who are the actual offenders 90% of the time; that if the violence is happening in the Black community and the police are patrolling the Black community, who do you think they are going to encounter in that community? Common sense would suggest that they would predominately encounter African American youth, many of whom would be potential offenders, and said encounter might go a long way in preventing a tragedy.
So the question becomes: Who else is committing these violent and senseless crimes? If not young Black men, then who? Are these extreme Liberal views advocating that the NYPD cease the Stop and Frisk tactics? If so, does it benefit the community and reduce the carnage in the streets of New York?
Fundamental human freedoms and civil rights are the basis of this country. Those who are oppressed should voice their concerns and fight, if necessary, to secure those rights and ensure they are inviolate. But to constantly beat the drum while claiming blatant racism goes beyond the pale. At some point we have to take responsibility for ourselves and our community. The police have a job to do to protect those of us who are law abiding and innocent. Current trends indicate, and have for many decades, that our prime enemy and those who would do us harm and are successful in that endeavor each and every day are our own Black men. What would you suggest we do to at least slow the cycle of violence rather than blaming it on the ineffectiveness of the police department?
I have no idea whether I would agree with you on other political matters, but your comments above are some of the most well thought out that I have ever seen on this board. Thank you for posting them.
Mr. Williams
I can appreciate your statements and they do appear well thought out, however, they are also void of the fact that we have a gun lobbyist in Washington DC and across this nation known as the NRA. The NRA fights daily to keep gun restrictions from being imposed on citizens for their own good and protection.
These gun laws would not restrict hunter's rights and ability to hunt game, but they would go far to curb the access of hand-guns to individuals that pose a threat to innocents, as you mentioned in your comments.
The police would not need to have such an aggressive "frisk" policy were it not for immediate availability and unrestricted access to handguns. Why are gun-shows unrestricted? Access to guns is more the culprit in violent crime than anyone is willing to admit from the right.
Obama/Biden 2012 FORWARD with Decency
~Christians don't vote for Liars~ romneylies.org
That would make sense if you could carry a gun in NYC. But surprise you can't. So what the NRA wants or thinks has no bearing in that cesspool that thinks pot is good, big gulp is bad.
So what has been the response by the police when the young man asks if he is being detained? When you remain silent while the cops violate your rights, you are consenting to them doing so. You have to stand up for your rights, it isn't going to be the government doing it for you.
Gun shows have no special laws. If you can't purchase a gun, it is illegal to do so at a gun show. There is no constitutional protection to hunt, and yes you are restricted all the time by needing hunting licenses. Sounds like you have a problem with the parole board, they are the ones letting dangerous people out of prison. If you allow open carry in NYC, there would be no need to frisk, you could see the gun on their hip in plain site.
Slack......and slow, access is the point. The glorification of 'gun-ownership" does indeed infect American values! I don't hunt and don't need, want or have a gun! I am completely American and am not missing a thing.
The NRA spends millions to keep ALL gun laws from being enacted, all of them. Wonder why there are so many guns for those on probation to get their hands on? Lies, and spin is all republicans have on this issue.
Obama/Biden 2012
~Christians don't vote for Liars~ maddowblog-mitt's mendacity
Most gun laws infringe on our rights so should be stopped. The right is to protect me from government not for putting bambie on the table for dinner, that is just an added bonus. You might like living under a romney dictatorship, I do not and don't want to have no choice but to be taken away to the camps.
Of course the NRA has supported gun control, they sided with clinton. And I will never support them again.
I have no problem keeping violent people locked in prison. Why do you want them on the streets. It is keeping the people from having guns that gets everyone killed. Check out the poor saps in syria.
Guess no christian will be voting for obama then, he hasn't told the truth about anything. Now we find out he lied about his brother, his girlfriend, his family, the SCOTUS, his policies, and his spending.
This is one of those cases where I respect the poster, but disagree profusely with what he or she posted. Surprisingly rare!
Note that: 90% of those that were stopped were INNOCENT of whatever it is they were stopped for.
"If not young Black men, then who?"... and therein lies the problem! The very question (stereotype? even worse than that?), however absurd, of "if the young black men aren't commiting the crimes... then who ever could it be?!" is the source of this controversy.
So your argument, however eloquently articulated, is null and void.
Food for thought: and
Keep going, Melissa Harris-Perry, Ed, and MSNBC!
I couldn't agree more.
The issue isn't whether some aggressive police tactics have made a difference. There is plenty of evidence that they have. But much of that difference occurred before the dramatic expansion of stop and frisk. So it is specious to argue that it is stop and frisk, rather than other tactics such as targeting hot spots, shutting down open-air drug markets, increasing police presence, and keeping track of where crime is occurring that have worked. New York City is indeed safer because of police behavior but that doesn't mean it's because of the dramatic, and recent, expansion of stop-and-frisk. See Franklin Zimring's book, The City that Became Safe, for a genuinely evidence-based discussion of these issues.
You know you can argue numbers all day, talk about statistics and how the violence effects the black community and they should be grateful for what the police are doing.
But if one innocent person is stopped harassed, searched because he was profiled then this policy is wrong. And needs to change because you can not harass innocent citizens because of their color and claim it's for the greater good.
If it were being done to whites we all know this wouldn't be allowed, and white people do commit crimes just as well as blacks. They rob, the sell drugs, they murder, and more just as blacks and other minorities do.
So lets stop saying that it's about justice and be honest, it's racial profiling. It's not allowed anywhere else in the country, and shouldn't be allowed to continue in New York City...
Which is more important...the one innocent person who is stopped and searched because of racial profiling or the one innocent person whose life is saved because the Stop and Frisk program took a gun away from someone?
How do you provide equal protection to both people? Hopefully, we would all agree that there is a problem and it needs to be addressed.
just saying...
But if one innocent person is stopped harassed, searched because he was profiled then this policy is wrong.
No it's not. If they get 1 creep off the street it's all worth it.
It's not racial profiling, it's criminal profiling.
We all know Bloomberg is a power-mad idiot at this point. The part where you could end up with a bigger fine for a large soda than for a huge bag of marijuana should have illustrated that nicely. The man believes in true nanny-state management of New York City and doesn't care who he steps on to get it. This is just one more drop in the bucket for him. I actually don't think it's racially motivated on Bloomberg's part. I think he would like to have EVERY person in the city subjected to mandatory searches wherever he could. That's just the kind of man he is.
What ever happened to "unlawful search and seizure"? I hope it goes to court.
Liberals have no us for "unlawful search and seizure" they think the Constitution needs to be rewritten to their ideas and rules.
Next, blomturd will tell you what you can have on your pizza!!!!
Can't they just watch the criminals from the cameras and bust them after they have crimes on tape?
What MSNBC believes in personal liberties. Stop and Frisk is a totally ridiculous plan and just another Liberal approach to solving a problem. Bigger more worse government.
Let anyone who is against the stop & Firsk law spend one month in a high crime area, and they will change their tune quickly ! I spent many years in high crime areas as a cop, and trust me, the S & F laws do reduce the crime rate significantly !
The police S&F only those that are more likely to be criminals and they call it racist...LOL
Bloomberg thinks he is the God of NY. He should look around and get started on his treatment before they stick him in a home for his Alzheimers/Autism/or whatever the NY Medical Mafia criminals call prion these days...LOL
The real AIDS causing all syndromes...Used to be called AIDS dementia...LOL Only HIV did not cause AIDS. MEN DID.
He is a billionaire liberal, what do you expect...
I thought reagan invented it to get rid of blacks?
But if you want to get rid of dangerous guns in NY you must disarm the police, they can't hit a van 5 feet in front of them without firing 75 or more rounds.
So in NYC you can not smoke, get a 20oz drink in a restaurant and you can walk the streets with out being frisked by the cops..
Sounds like liberal heaven to me!!!!!
ED, Stop and Frisk is a phrase used to describe an exception to the fourth amendment from "Terry vs. Ohio" in 1968. In the case the US Supreme Court determined that it was constitutional for police to stop, detain, and conduct a cursory search for weapons on or about the detainee when a reasonable suspicion that the detainee was engaged in criminal activity. That reasonable suspicion is not and cannot be based exclusively on the detainees race or color. The totality of the circumstances must be considered. I doubt the police officers engaged in this activity in New York are basing stops exclusively on race and color. The time, location, activity, and behavior of the detainee are the factors used to justify the stop. Affecting such a stop based exclusively or in part on the race and color of the detainee is unconstitutional. That said, it appears that there is a significant number of minorities engaged in suspicious activity in New York. The reduction in crime as a result of the policy is an indication the program is working well.
That said, how about doing a story on laws intended exclusively to generate revenue for the state and local government. Laws like seatbelt and helmet requirements, and the prohibition on cell phones when driving. The National traffic related death totals have changed little with the passage of these regulatory laws, many states even classify them as crimes. Speed laws are a great example. In 1973 when the Federal Government established the Maximum Speed Limit as 55 MPH there were 54,000 deaths were reported. The law was repealed in 1995. The death toll for the years following its repeal were significantly lower than the years the law was in effect. State and local governments generated billions of dollars in revenue enforcing the law, while it did nothing to improve driver safety as illustrated by the death tolls. Most of the states with seatbelt laws adopted those laws between the mid 1980's and the early 1990's. During the subsequent years there was a small decrease in deaths in some years but the average annual total fell little, and many attribute the reduction to the design and construction of vehicles.
The bottom line the Government places income tax, sales tax, and other tax burdens on us, but just can't seem to function without additional revenue so they create laws to generate more. Every time a ticket is issued for speeding or talking on the cell phone more money leaves the pocket of the individual that earned it so the Government can feed its unending hunger. It has to stop.
Why don't you apply for a job as a producer on MSNBC? You apparently think your input is needed.
Chris, I admit they need a lot of help but I am far too busy. Bye the way did you learn some thing in reading my post or were you already aware of "Terry vs. Ohio"? Now tell me you agree with the Police State that has developed in this country.
Here is a model program that New York could use to reduce crime without profiling.
Ninety-five percent of those jailed return to their communities and some 60 percent are jailed again. This faith-based program reduces that rate to 10 percent.
Alice in Political Land: Facts and Fantasy.
Ninety-five percent of people who are jailed return to the community but soon go back to jail. Listen to Linda Ketcham, director of Madison Urban Ministry, a faith-based prisoner re-entry program that reduces the return rate from 60 percent to 10 percent.
Here's how to cut crime without profiling. Ninety-five percent of people who are jailed return to the community but soon go back to jail. Listen to Linda Ketcham, director of Madison Urban Ministry, a faith-based prisoner re-entry program that reduces the return rate from 60 percent to 10 percent.
Alice in Political Land: Facts and Fantasy.
the web site for the Linda Ketcham program on reducing the rate at which criminals return to jail by 50 percent is www.webtalkradio.net search for Peggy Wireman or Alice in Political Land: Facts and Fantasy
Even easier, and better. LOCK them up till they have done there time. Now you have old men who are not a threat roaming the streets in their walkers.
You can use the savings from the no longer needed parole system to fund the new prisons.
Or just enact hollywoods idea.... wall off NYC and dump the convicts there to fend for themselves.
No numbers here. We had an area in my town that was very bad and I really don't want to say it like this but it is 99% blacks. There were nothing but dope dealers and shoot-outs until the city got tired of it. The police cleaned it up by Stop & Frisk and for several years I felt safe driving through the area. In the last three years, the city has had to lay off police officers, the area is no longer protroled. Guess what, the dope dealers and shoot outs have returned. It is no longer safe to be inb the area. It is time for the courts, the A.C.L.U. and the NRA to get out of the way and let the police solve the problem. Most departments know who the bad guys are.
you dummycrats only got one move now with Holder the right is only doing this cause he black