Is 'stop and frisk' worth it?

[downtown]

As long as they are only shooting each other in small isolated areas where the police are too incompetent or uncaring to stop them, who really cares?

Because people are dying? I mean, duh.

I mean sure, there are all sorts of economic reasons...gang violence isloates communities from the city at large, perpetuates an underclass that is expensive and doesn't contribute, violence can leak into other areas, etc...

But really, I would think that "people in my city are getting shot on a regular basis" would be enough to spring to action. Just because people aren't getting shot in my particular neighborhood (very often) doesn't mean that I'm not concerned that people are getting shot in Chicago.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Only, again, they aren't "getting shot on a regular basis". That is just more fearmongering and hyperbole, just like what occurred after 9/11 and the passing of the so-called Patriot Act. "Duh".

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin.

 

[downtown]

Only, again, they aren't "getting shot on a regular basis". That is just more fearmongering just like what occurred after 9/11 and the passing of the so-called Patriot Act. "Duh".

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin.

In New York they may not be (I don't know NYC well enough)...but there are other US cities where gun violence, in fact, happens on a regular basis.

Lets look at my adopted hometown, Chicago. Chicago has 250 reported homicides in 2012, with 46 of those in June...that's more than one homicide a day. That doesn't include the number of times a guy got shot and *didn't* die. (I'm using the RedEye Chicago Homicide Tracker map). These shootings are primarly around the city's West and South sides.

For particular neighborhoods, like Little Village, Englewood, Austin and West Garfield Park, there is absoutely a "shooting" at least once a week. (http://www.trulia.com/crime/Chicago,IL/shooting/)

New Orleans, a city the fraction the size of Chicago, has had over 40 murders in the area including Mid-City, the 7th ward and Bywater. Using the Nola Crime Tracker, there were over 72 shootings LAST MONTH. Yeah, that's about a shooting a day.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure other cities have neighborhoods like that.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you exclude out gang-on-gang violence, what do the stats look like? Enough to justify deviating from the 4th Amendment? Also, given the 2nd Amendment, how can one illegally possess a firearm?

 

[downtown]

If you exclude out gang-on-gang violence, what do the stats look like? Enough to justify deviating from the 4th Amendment? Also, given the 2nd Amendment, how can one illegally possess a firearm?

I think it's hard to say...partly because crime mapping websites don't make that distinction, and partly because in practice, it can be hard to draw that line. There is no doubt in my mind that gang activity is the main driver for shootings in Chicago (and would be a significant, if not the main driver in New Orleans) though.

 

[JollyRoger]

So, it seems that if gang-on-gang violence is the primary activity when it comes to shootings, then one can opt out of having a statistically significant chance of being a shooting victim by not getting involved in gang activity. Also, it would seem that gang members generally exhibit enough probable cause of criminal activity to make Constitutional police work enough.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Indeed. The only issue I see here is basic incompetence or general unwillingness on the part of the police to properly address these matters. We hardly need to forsake the Constitution to properly deal with this issue any more than we needed to do so after 9/11. It is just more authoritarian excuses to deprive us of our basic rights.

 

[downtown]

So, it seems that if gang-on-gang violence is the primary activity when it comes to shootings, then one can opt out of having a statistically significant chance of being a shooting victim by not getting involved in gang activity. Also, it would seem that gang members generally exhibit enough probable cause of criminal activity to make Constitutional police work enough.

Well, no, I don't think that's true. You can opt out by not living in a gang territory, but innocent bystanders get shot all the time. Not being a gang member doesn't mean that you won't be a target for gang-related crimes, or that a gang member won't accidently shoot up your house or your kid by mistake.

That's actually part of the arguement from the postal worker in the news article. She isn't a gang member, but she picks up some of the risks, from them being a part of her community.

 

[JollyRoger]

Sure there is risk, but is it statistically significant enough to justify bypassing probable cause? The hyperbole is people getting shot at on a regular basis. If most of the people getting shot at are gang members, I think we should discount the hyperbole before giving it as a justification for stop and frisk.

 

[downtown]

Sure there is risk, but is it statistically significant enough to justify bypassing probable cause? The hyperbole is people getting shot at on a regular basis. If most of the people getting shot at are gang members, I think we should discount the hyperbole before giving it as a justification for stop and frisk.

I don't know if we can say that the majorty of people getting shot at are gang members. There is a difference between that and shootings being gang related.

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't know if we can say that the majorty of people getting shot at are gang members. There is a difference between that and shootings being gang related.

Well, I think we should damned well be able to say one way or the other before proceeding willy nilly away from probable cause.

 

[downtown]

Well, I think we should damned well be able to say one way or the other before proceeding willy nilly away from probable cause.

Do you think there is an appriopriate % where that would be ok? If 45% of the shootings were towards non-gang members? 60%? 80%?

 

[JollyRoger]

It really has more to do with an absolute number per time period rather than a percentage. Show me thyat non-gang members are shot on a regular basis before I would even consider stop and frisk as valid. Even thn then, if the shooters are primarily gang members, we have probable cause and other Constitutional police tools for that.

 

[emzie]

This thread is full of a bunch of white people who've never faced actual discrimination in their lives. I wonder how many of you would be okay with the police looking at your download history (for piracy) or would be okay with the IRS doing their auditing based on race. I wonder how many supporters of this were okay with Arizona's similar laws aimed at Hispanics undocumented immigrants.

The results of the program are irrelevant if the methods are deplorable. And really, it's questionable that the program does actually work.

 

[Yeekim]

This thread is full of a bunch of white people who've never faced actual discrimination in their lives. I wonder how many of you would be okay with the police looking at your download history (for piracy) or would be okay with the IRS doing their auditing based on race. I wonder how many supporters of this were okay with Arizona's similar laws aimed at Hispanics undocumented immigrants.

The results of the program are irrelevant if the methods are deplorable. And really, it's questionable that the program does actually work.

No. This thread is full of white people who've never lived in a housing block like this, up in arms because police is clearly overreacting to some worthless black people shooting each other amongst other equally worthless black people.

I mean, that is clearly a very slippery slope. Once the cops get so uppity that they start properly dealing with violent crime among minorities, who is to say they won´t start looking at download history of decent white people?! Nay, the police state must be stopped right here! Fortunately, we are smart enough to keep our distance from this particular neigbourhood, so we are unlikely to get mugged or hit by a stray bullet.

Some might argue that the right not to get shot in the face trumps the right to not get written up for jaywalking, or the right not to checked for illegal firearms.

Now that is just crazy talk!

 

[JollyRoger]

Once the cops . . . start properly dealing with violent crime

. . . then it will be shown that stop and frisk was unnecessary.

 

[BvBPL]

To mirror JR, I'd have to say that stop and frisk sure sounds like sloppy police work. Only 12% of stops and frisks result in a summons or ticket, meaning 88% of those stopped aren't breaking the law. A stop and frisk appears to take about three minutes per incident, which means that about 30,000 man hours were devoted to stopping and frisking people who were never charged in the last year. (Or, really, way more than that since most s&fs are performed by cops working in tandem) That hardly seems like an beneficent use of the NYPD's time.
--
In addition to the racial aspect, there's also a class bias against people of lesser means in these stops and frisks as taxi cabs, and those in them, are immune to stopping and frisking. Obviously the well-heeled can avoid all this nonsense with a quick call to car service, but those of us in the hoi polloi must continue to endure the intrusive pawing of the NYPD.
--
And to those of you, like Save Ferris, who suggest that no harm is done by stopping innocent people, you may wish to consider how a 72 year old man got sent to the hospital after being stopped (and sworn at) by the police. Or this guy who's been patted down over sixty times.

 

[kochman]

I was against it until I found out that crime had decreased. As long as we don't do any racial profiling and it doesn't cost a quadrillion dollars, I don't think it can be that bad.

Also, at Bloomberg saying New York is "America's safest city".

Safest big city... proportionally it is, from the last data I saw.

I think it would be VERY VERY hard to carry out this policy without really racially profiling. Very few white people live in these neighborhoods.

That's a racist way to look at it DT...

IF the places getting S&F are based on CRIME STATS, and not racial demographics, it's fine, in theory.
Where I lived in NYC, heavily african-american, had a lower crime rate than the national average... it was 84 (100 being average)... if they employed it there, I'd seriously question it! But, if you look at the worst neighborhoods, the data is there to support it... and I think the law abiding citizens appreciate a drop in their areas crime rate. If they turn it into a racial thing, then they have a chip on their shoulder.

However, you can't stop someone for nothing... enforcing minor laws to find bigger offenses is technically legal (seat belt laws for example).

 

[BvBPL]

As it happens, someone has already done the work for you.

Here's a map showing the precincts that have the highest numbers of stops and frisks with demographic information. You will note that most of these precincts are majority white which is in contrast to fact that most those stopped and frisked are people of color.

 

[kochman]

As it happens, someone has already done the work for you.

Here's a map showing the precincts that have the highest numbers of stops and frisks with demographic information. You will note that most of these precincts are majority white which is in contrast to fact that most those stopped and frisked are people of color.

Well, now it's clearly racist because they only care to enfore the law in white areas! hahahahahahahahaha

More raciss police... they only care about white neighborhoods now