Many people complain about the inhumanity of Stop & Frisk, but it's not about that

[WhiskeyGrinder]

Link to tweet

Many people complain about the inhumanity of Stop & Frisk, but it's not about that. Here's a list of the top 10 reasons why stop & frisk is worse than you think.

10. First of all, I continue to reiterate that according to EVERY peer-reviewed study, white people use illicit drugs as often as black people. The best data comes from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Black people make up 42 percent of NYC. Yet, there hasn't been a single year where black people weren't the MAJORITY of stop & frisk victims. White people make up 24% of NYS's population. They make up 10% of people who are stopped and frisked

9. It's dangerous AF. Studies show that the more interactions a white person has with police officers, the safer they are. The opposite is true for non-white people. We talk about people who are shot and killed by police, but we talk about the ones who survive shootings...
The ones who are beaten, tasered, or choked for simply talking back or looking at police officers wrong.

8. It makes neighborhoods LESS safe. When police target people who are innocent, they are LESS likely to call the cops when something does actually happen. Here's a study from the Harvard Sociological Review showing that 911 calls decline after incidents of police violence: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mdesmond/files/american_sociological_review-2016-desmond-857-76.pdf

7. It puts people in the criminal justice system. There are incidents of the NYPD stopping people because they were drinking in front of buildings they lived in, or talking too loud. In one case, a man was stopped and frisked because the officer said the man LAUGHED at him. He arrested the man but the man was let go by the judge with nothing but a ticket for a discarded cigarette butt. But the man missed work, so he lost his job. Because he lost his job, he didn't pay a ticket. Because he didn't pay the ticket, a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was arrested on his brother's wedding day by an officer who was doing security at the event hall. It was the same officer who locked him up for laughing. A LOT of people have extensive criminal records because they couldn't pay.

6. It is a race tax. If the people who are stopped and frisked are overwhelmingly black and brown, then who do you think are paying those fines? From 2012-2017, 86 % of New Yorkers arrested for 5th degree weed possession (a misdemeanor) were non-white.

5. There is one thing about police brutality and misapplied justice that always bothered me: Why don't cops shoot more white people? One of the lesser-known facts about NY stop & frisk data is that white people were MORE likely to have contraband when stopped than black people.

4. You probably haven't read about this, but one of the lesser-told stories of S&F is the sexual assault of young black boys. In 2016, a black boy was stopped, frisked and penetrated by an officer's fingers. Stop & frisks almost ALWAYS involve underwear searches that are called: "Stop & Fondle." But it only happens in black neighborhoods...A LOT. The average black male under the age of 25 living in Brownsville is stopped and frisked, on average, FIVE TIMES per year. Imagine getting used to that.

3. Not only is it dehumanizing, but it criminalizes black boys and normalizes victimzation. I personally believe it increases crime. How? What's to stop you from committing a crime if you are ALREADY treated like a criminal?

2. All of these police encounters have real-world implications. If police disproportionately target black boys for drugs, despite the evidence that there is no difference in drug use or sales, then black boys are more likely to have criminal records.

1. But here's the most important thing to know about Stop and Frisk: IT DOESN'T WORK. There isn't a scintilla of evidence that it reduces crime. It doesn't catch dangerous criminals. It makes cops less trustworthy. It costs taxpayers in civil suits and incarceration dollars.

If you went to a job interview and told the person doing the hiring: "At my last job, I implemented a plan that put all the other workers in danger; it cost a lot of money; I directed it at the wrong target audience; no one liked it and it failed 80 percent of the time"...What would the interviewee say? Would they look at the other job candidates? Would they ask for a second interview?

In the case of Michael Bloomberg, the answer seems to be: "Well, at least he's better than the guy we want to fire."

[left-of-center2012]

1. That was then --- This is now

We need to defeat Trump;
not elect a saint.

[PoliticAverse]

2. "We need to defeat Clinton - not elect a saint". - How Republican voters rationalized electing Trump

[Demsrule86]

7. Well it worked didn't it? The judges alone make electing Bloomberg worthwhile.

[dualboy24]

5. Such a poor argument

Yet I keep hearing it from people in these forums, you need to elect who has the best policies, and who is consistent with good values.

Beat evil with evil is not a great strat.

[UniteFightBack]

32. Oh brother. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. THIS!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[aka-chmeee]

12. All have sinned and fall short

of SOMEBODY's purity test.

Who shall run, for all are found wanting?

[left-of-center2012]

13. Joe's fallen the past week

[uponit7771]

15. This is false, Bloomberg was defending racial profiling last year not "then" and this

... year said it was "overused" not that it shouldn't have been used at all.

Just found out also Bloomberg spoke of those who were red-lined as those who got favorable loan and CP5 restitution fight.

The hits keep coming with him when it comes to blacks

[Garrett78]

3. Bloomberg is deplorable. Many on DU should be very, very embarrassed.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/02/a-republican-plutocrat-tries-to-buy-the-democratic-nomination

[left-of-center2012]

4. Current Affairs Magazine ?

“These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.”

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/current-affairs-magazine/

[Voltaire2]

10. " strongly biased toward liberal causes" omfg

really, how embarrassing to use a "liberal" source. We should stick to reporting that is acceptably center-right.

[left-of-center2012]

11. .

"They may publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes.
Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.”

[Kaleva]

20. He didn't read that part or pay attention to it.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

8. I am disappointed yet unsurprised at how quickly and easily people rationalize support for him.

[The Mouth]

9. Same play

different actors

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. The irony cannot be overlooked.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[uponit7771]

16. +1, America deserves more than slightly better than Trump

[TwilightZone]

39. When Trump...

starts supporting choice, gun laws, raising taxes on the wealthy, expanding the ACA, and donates $6 billion to charity, that might be an apt comparison.

I'm not a fan of Bloomberg, but equating him to Trump is laughable.

[emmaverybo]

46. This is what fear does. Fear and its manipulation makes people betray their values, sacrifice ideals

and embrace power that deprives them of their freedoms. Many times, they will sacrifice “the other” to their fears. We have seen this movie before,

[Garrett78]

48. And the notion that Bloomberg would win is terribly misguided.

People are all excited because he's anti-Trump and has billions to spend, but he'll get his ass kicked in November by the time everyone learns more about him. Turnout will suck and 3rd party voting will be even greater than it was in 2016. You think people are disenchanted now with the status quo? You ain't seen nothin' yet. Our party will be lost for a generation or more.

Bloomberg is a disaster.

[emmaverybo]

56. Yes. Our party will be damaged for generations. We will no longer be the party of civil rights,

of constitutional freedoms at all. And we have not yet gone into Bloomberg’s post 9/11 anti-Muslim
activities.

[Karadeniz]

6. Thanks for the info...much appreciated!

[Blue_true]

14. I don't care.

If a guy is wearing a long coat and it looks like he may be carrying one or more guns, I want the cops to stop him and frisk him. One of two things should happen, he has no gun and goes about his business, or he has one or more guns and should be arrested if they are not registered. Either one beats a person trafficking a gun or guns that are then used in crimes and murders.

[Devil Child]

17. Well in Bloomberg's NYC you aren't gonna get thrown to the wall and frisked

Unless you’re a young black male in a black community. So if that descriptor doesn’t match you it’s understandable you wouldn’t care but plenty of others do.

[Blue_true]

21. Have you spent time in NYC?

If so, do you ever see Black or Hispanic guys walking on Wall Street, in the UES, the UWS or Times Square looking like they are potentially packing a gun or guns in bigger than needed jackets? I honestly NEVER have and have never seen such people stopped in such places. It is a lot more complicated that race, you keep trying to reduce it to only race, it's not.

[uponit7771]

18. In only black and Hispanic communities ? cause that's were 95% of it was implemented

... by rule of Bloomberg.

He specifically spoke of minorities which turned it into racial profiling

I persons skin color doesn't make them look suspcious but Bloomberg's implementation of S&F says it was OK to use it.

[Blue_true]

22. I have been to that city a lot.

I don't see people on Wall Street and Times Square getting frisked because they are wearing clothing that appears to be concealing a gun or guns, this goes for every race that walks around in those places going about their business. You are insistent on making this issue solely about race, it is not solely about race.

[uponit7771]

24. The multiple lawsuits Bloomberg lost on the issue says you are wrong. I'll believe the multitude

... of PoC in those communities negatively affected by the racist policy of racial profiling the courts said was being implemented by Bloomberg.

Facts matter

[Blue_true]

26. I would rather have a gun taken away from a person who is illegally carrying than

worry whether a stop inconvenience him or her.

One of the things that people keep glossing over is that crime where a gun is used happens more frequently in some places, it is malpractice for cops to not have a presence in those places and to stop anyone whose clothing indicates the person may be carrying a heavy object like a gun or guns. Will mistakes be made, yes, but policy can be adjusted and Bloomberg did adjust policy over the life of stop and frisk.

[uponit7771]

28. That's not what happened though so it didn't make the city safer. There's no argument

... for racial profiling anywhere, we're not talking about S&F cause that was never the illegal or immoral issue that Bloomberg was sued over.

Of course if the police see something suspicious do something but the suspicious shouldn't be the person skin color.

[Blue_true]

29. Were Black or Brown people walking on Wall Street or in the UES stopped and frisked.

There are several million Black and Brown people in NYC, you make it sound like everyone was stopped and frisked, nothing can be more fantastical. Bloomberg targeted areas that had high crime comitted with a gun, there were only a certain number of places that fell into that category.

[stopdiggin]

62. and it was still as illegal as f**k

the fact that more than 9 out of 10 stops found nothing. That's the issue. It's racial profiling and harassment on a world class level. Knowingly .. intentionally.

You could almost try an "ends justifies the means" argument .. except that you never got the ends. So .. just means .. and no justification.

[uponit7771]

66. Deflection is an indicator of a weak argument, racial profiling is illegal. You know that and racial

... profiling is what Bloomberg admits to even in recent audio recordings.

[melman]

30. Are you saying it's okay if it happens where you can't see it?

Also, according to the NYT there were 685,724 stops in 2011.

Do you seriously believe cops observed "bigger than average coats" being worn in 685,724 cases?

[Blue_true]

34. I am not saying that there were not racist cops that took advantage.

But if an area has high violence that involves guns, I want police activity there and leaders must work to insure that beat cops are enforcing laws properly. Was stop and frisk perfect at implementation, no, no policy ever is. Bloomberg worked to make the policy more effective and to target a person that was likely to be carrying an illegal weapon. That is all that I care about.

[Cal Carpenter]

47. Are you really defending this?

"Beginning in 2007, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) filed a series of Freedom of Information Act requests to get the NYPD’s data on its stop-and-frisk encounters and what was found. In 2012, the NYPD made more than 532,000 stops, each of which could progress to a frisk or to a full search. The police found guns only 715 times. 1 In other words, guns were found during 0.1 percent of stops."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/it-takes-a-lot-of-stop-and-frisks-to-find-one-gun/

This was not just a few racist cops.

There is no question that stop and frisk was a racist policy, it destroyed lives, and it was ruled unconstitutional. And it didn't accomplish any of its stated objectives.

Under Bloomberg there were 685k stop and frisks in a year. When de Blasio took office it went down to like 20k.

It was authoritarian, racist, unnecessary, and it destroyed lives. And Bloomberg made it happen.

[stopdiggin]

63. THIS! It was authoritarian, racist, unnecessary, and it destroyed lives.

and Bloomberg was a big time cheerleader. Period.

[uponit7771]

67. +1, there's some serious deflection going on with some. Racial profiling is illegal and that's what

... Bloomberg has not apologized for and it sounds like hes still defending it by saying S&F was "overused" and not admitting to the illegal racial profiling issue.

I can't believe

[Turin_C3PO]

19. He targeted minorities.

Are you okay with that? I’ll vote blue no matter who but I hope it’s not Bloomberg.

[Blue_true]

27. He targeted areas that had high gun crime. That is simply logical. nt

[Cal Carpenter]

60. He targeted *people* who had nothing to do with that crime

"In 2012, the NYPD made more than 532,000 stops, each of which could progress to a frisk or to a full search. The police found guns only 715 times. 1 In other words, guns were found during 0.1 percent of stops."

That's 1 in a thousand.

Mostly people of color. And if they were found with a dime bag or an outstanding warrant on a misdemeanor they could get thrown into the hell that is Rikers Island. If they couldn't pay bail? Well maybe they'd get to enjoy the 90% increase in violence by guards against inmates while they were stuck there, because that happened under Bloomberg too.

How the fuck is any of that 'logical'?

[uponit7771]

68. This is false on its face

[Tarc]

31. White Privilege

[Blue_true]

33. Actually I am Black and well educated, never been in trouble with the police.

I don't wear my Blackness on my sleeves as a badge of honor. Is there White privilege looming large in society, yes certainly, does it explain all matters, HELL NO!!!!!

If someone is carrying around an illegal weapon or weapons, I want that person arrested, simple as that. I really don't give a shit about what they look like.

[stopdiggin]

64. and you are OK with ANY methods in achieving that goal?

because it seems like that is what you are arguing .. or defending.

[Blue_true]

69. If people have illegal weapons, I want them arrested.

Can cops be smarter, and yes, less racist in that end, yes, but what I care about is that anyone that is foolish enough to be in possession of an illegal gun have that gun taken away and get sent to jail. I really don't care about the color of the person in such a situation.

[Gravitycollapse]

36. Truly ignorant of why stop and frisk is so evil.

Not only is it not effective, it targets racial/ethnic minorities and the poor. It’s a bullshit practice.

[Blue_true]

38. Depends upon how you define ineffective.

If it stopped 65% of the wrong people, but got 90% of illegal guns off the streets, it was effective in my way of seeing such issues. All I care about is that a gun that could have been used in a crime or to murder someone got confiscated before the crime happened.

[Gravitycollapse]

40. So the questionable ends justify the racist/classist means.

Seems like really poor moral form.

[Blue_true]

44. If the right people that have guns are caught, yes.

Maybe then some of those that were stopped but were not packing stay alive by not being killed by a gun that cops didn't go after. Sorry, real life can be messy.

[Gravitycollapse]

45. I mean, that's nonsense. And you're putting people of color at risk.

Of police violence and incarceration. All to perpetuate some fantasy about a tactic that is ineffective and deeply immoral.

[emmaverybo]

50. ++++++++++

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

59. Yes S&F is absolutely ABHORRENT, but, Bernie must be stopped... so it's okay to rationalize S&F

Seriously, can't wait for the coming debates though... can't think of a better way for Bernie to promote and contrast his aggressive progressive agenda while having Mike Bloomberg standing on the stage trying to splain away his stop & frisk policy, which caused so much racial injustice and tension in New York City's minority communities, along with the negative socio-economic consequences of that policy.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[emmaverybo]

49. They didn't stop people who looked like they were armed. They stopped people who were

black and Latino under the assumption they were armed and potentially murderers, all of them. It is called profiling and illegal search and seizure. It does not keep us safe.

[Blue_true]

57. All of them? That is a pretty bold statement.

Certain areas were targeted because of a high incidence of gun crime. Were mistakes made when that happened, yes, but all I care about is guns that would have or had been used in a crime were taken off the streets.


What did your Vet say about your dogs and protecting them from contracting COVID-19 (coronavirus)? Not that I believe the risk of that happening was even remote.

[emmaverybo]

65. Due process. Search and seizure laws. Equal rights under the law. We balance society's need to be

safe with respect for civil liberties. In this case, civil liberties were suspended for black and brown youth in predominantly black and brown neighborhoods. The consequences for these youth far outstripped any crime fighting benefit.

In fact, no evidence suggests crime declined as a result. The harm to policing was also not a good trade-off. A draconian policy enacted in minority neighborhoods increased tensions between police and those communities which police depend upon to help them keep law and order. Police were that much more endangered because of the mistrust and anger youth, many law-abiding, experienced towards them.

Perhaps you would look at this issue from the stand-point if its crime fighting success and from a policing perspective. There is a way to fight potential serious crime with stopping and frisking people legally and judiciously. There is a way to get guns off the streets legally, smartly.

The quarantine analogy does not work. These youths were not restricted in movement and humanely, respectfully treated, for their and society’s safety on a temporary basis. These youths were frightened, harassed, treated brutally in many cases, denied constitutional rights based on a flawed crime theory, racist beliefs, and political expedience.

This article discusses how stopping and questioning people can be done while upholding their civil rights as enshrined in law and without incurring all the negative consequences
communities of color and police alike encountered during Bloomberg’s failed policy.
Snip————————————————————————

Although SQF predated Bloomberg’s election as mayor, the program ratcheted-up under his leadership far beyond its constitutionally sanctioned contours. Stop-and-frisk has a long history as a policing tactic rooted in particularized, reasonable suspicion that a specific individual is involved in criminal activity.

However, in New York and several other U.S. jurisdictions, this tactic morphed into a widespread, aggressive crime-control strategy. With Bloomberg’s unwavering support, NYPD officers routinely stopped, questioned, and often patted-down hundreds of thousands of people each year—roughly 87 percent of whom were African-American or Latinx—to see if they were carrying weapons or drugs.

The NYPD argued that they applied SQF only when officers had reasonable suspicion that someone was breaking the law, but given their low “hit rates,” such claims seem quite implausible. Only 6 percent of all stops resulted in an arrest and less than 1 percent resulted in the seizure of a firearm.

By contrast, 88 percent of all stops yielded no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.

https://thecrimereport.org/2019/11/26/why-bloombergs-apology-perpetuates-misunderstanding-of-stop-and-frisk/

[hangaleft]

23. HOW DID STOP & FRISK PASS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER?

I just don’t get it.

The 4th Amendment protects ALL OF US against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Stop & Frisk is about as flagrant a violation of the 4th Amendment as I can imagine.

How did the S. Ct. uphold challenges to this policy? It had to be challenged. I know pigs like Alito and Scalia would find a way to justify this abhorrent policy. But FIVE Justices upheld this racist abomination as Constitutional?

P.S. Opposing a candidate who supported this policy is not litmus testing or purity testing. Support of S&F is a disqualifier. Period. Exclamation point. End of discussion.

[jmg257]

25. It doesn't - and you are correct!!...

New York's stop-and-frisk trial comes to a close with landmark ruling
Judge's decision that NYPD policy violates individuals' constitutional right to protection is result of 10-week long trial

Stop-and-frisk as implemented by the NYPD violates an individual's right to protection under the fourth and 14th amendments of the constitution, judge Shira Scheindlin found in a 195-page ruling. She ordered the appointment of a federal monitor for the nation's largest police force, a measure NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg have long resisted.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/12/stop-and-frisk-landmark-ruling

[emmaverybo]

43. +10000

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

53. BINGO!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[emmaverybo]

41. It shreds civil liberties selectively. These 4th amendment freedoms from illegal search and seizure

keep us all from living in a police state, but are even more important to communities of color, historically criminalized, living under a crushing set of racist laws, denied equal protection under the law, brutalized by the law, subject to death at the hands of those enforcing the law.

Despite community and civil rights groups’ outcry, despite even police complaining, despite knowing in real time not only how draconian the policy was but its ineffectiveness as a crime fighting tactic, and despite it being declared unconstitutional, Bloomberg persisted in defending Stop and Frisk and claiming it had brought down crime.

So claimed Bloomberg, unrepentant until he decided to run.

And we haven’t begun on the anti-Muslim activity yet.

[emmaverybo]

42. Great post.

[tblue37]

52. K&R for visibility. nt

[Blues Heron]

54. Great post

Stop and frisk is simply un-American. We fought wars against this shite.

[Bradshaw3]

58. K&R

[lostnfound]

61. Kick nt