Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hey.... it doesn't impact NJJersey so it must be ok.
"The program became the subject of a racial profiling controversy. The vast majority, 90% in 2017, of those stopped were African-American or Latino, most of whom were aged 14–24. Furthermore, 70% of all those stopped were later found to be innocent.[1] By contrast, 54.1% of the population of New York City in 2010 was African-American or Latino;[2] however, 74.4% of individuals arrested overall were of those two racial groups."
70% of all those stopped were found to be innocent. Me thinks police aren't very good at using "a degree of suspicion."... especially when 90% are Minorities. Sounds like being a just being a minority is enough to meet "a degree of suspicion".
Questionable source. Plus, not sure what they mean by “innocent.” If they were stopped then they were most likely up to something, though a few could have been bad luck or mistaken identity.
I detest Bloomberg. This practice was only applied in high crime areas. The real question is do the non-criminals in those area object to clean up efforts?
I don't like Bloomberg either. Regardless of where the practice was applied, it revolved around less than probable cause.
I don't think non-criminals object to increased police presence. I think they would object to their neighborhoods being turned into a police state. At least I would.
Questionable source. Plus, not sure what they mean by “innocent.” If they were stopped then they were most likely up to something, though a few could have been bad luck or mistaken identity.
Well, when most of those who have been pulled over are found to have done nothing wrong, I would call that innocent. If they were found to be doing nothing wrong, I would not call that "up to no good". I would call that more than just bad luck.
Hey.... it doesn't impact NJJersey so it must be ok.
"The program became the subject of a racial profiling controversy. The vast majority, 90% in 2017, of those stopped were African-American or Latino, most of whom were aged 14–24. Furthermore, 70% of all those stopped were later found to be innocent.[1] By contrast, 54.1% of the population of New York City in 2010 was African-American or Latino;[2] however, 74.4% of individuals arrested overall were of those two racial groups."
70% of all those stopped were found to be innocent... 90% are minorities. I think 1) police aren't very good at using "a degree of suspicion.". and 2) just being a minority is enough to meet "a degree of suspicion".
It could be both. It could be that alot of officers weren't good at using "degree of suspicion" BECAUSE being a minority was enough for them to meet such suspicion. You likely had some officers who went into the job with the mentality of "you see a Black or Hispanic person, beware" and it bled into their work.
I also suspect there are individuals who believe in the mentality of "Blacks and Hispanics should be policed more strictly and subjected to a police state. It keeps everyone else safe". The way stop and frisked worked could very well be a symptomatic of how race relations have been.
The intent of stop and frisk is to reduce crime rate. Why must the criteria be comparative to another irregardless of racial lines. Some of the states that have comparable homicide rates in poor rural white areas.... If it can be used to reduce the crime rate in a city, why not in a rural area even if white. Alaska has the third highest homicide rate and a relatively high violent crime rate. Not much championing for stop and frisk in that state.
The obvious answer is that stop and frisk is profiling... No more no less.. When the profile of a perceived criminal is closer to that of the general population whose representative voice in government is strong... Then politicians will put a stop to it very quickly. In areas in which profiling will mainly impact those communities with little to no voice in government... Then stop and frisk continues unchallenged.. At least for a little while. Those groups with a voice in government don't care as long it isn't their family friend neighbors being harassed by the police.
It is discrimination and unconstitutional to say the least.
You're grossly misinformed.
The intent of stop and frisk is NOT to "reduce the crime rate."
That's the Bloomberg approach to Stop, Question and Frisk." He, himself manipulated "Terry Stops" which were the result of a SCOTUS case (Terry v. Ohio) which were ruled Constitutional.
Terry Stops are used everywhere in every community by the police in every part of the country. Cops stop and frisk people, white black or whatever based on "reasonable suspicion" under the guise of officer safety if that person is a suspect of a crime or is about to commit a crime.
Now, Bloomberg and NYPD Commmish Ray Kelly created "Impact Zones" in NYC, flooded high crime areas with young rookie cops on foot, and gave them quotas that included a specific number of "stops" in those areas. They were also required to have a specific number of arrests and summons in those zones.
This was all built on the "Broken Windows" theory. Impact Zones were determined by violent crime rates (the NYPD 7 majors crimes list) in a square mile area within a precinct.
If you're asking why hasn't it been implemented in a rural area--for starters, we don't know that. Second, what you saw Bloomberg and Ray Kelly do was a very unique manipulation of it. I've NEVER heard of any other mayor or PO Commissioner putting this into play...HOWEVER show me a majority white high crime area (equal to that of a black one) and I'll agree with you.
I lived in nyc during the crime wave of the 80s and saw crime decline in the early 90s because stop, question, and frisk and 'broken windows' arrests were implemented by rudy and carried on by bloomberg. the policies worked. crime dramatically dropped.
is stop, question and frisk needed now? perhaps in some cities or certain crime ridden areas of certain cities, but only the police can determine the necessity of such policies based on crime statistics and areas of greater crime.
I lived in nyc during the crime wave of the 80s and saw crime decline in the early 90s because stop, question, and frisk and 'broken windows' arrests were implemented by rudy and carried on by bloomberg. the policies worked. crime dramatically dropped.
is stop, question and frisk needed now? perhaps in some cities or certain crime ridden areas of certain cities, but only the police can determine the necessity of such policies based on crime statistics and areas of greater crime.
I disagree with the Stop and Frisk part. Crime was dropping before Stop and Frisk was implemented. And when it was being used, most of those who were being stopped and frisked were not found to be doing anything wrong. A heavier police presence helps. Being tough on crime got alot of criminals off the streets. Stop and Frisk wasn't as effective as you claim. If it did, S&F would have turned up alot more criminals than it did. All it really did was violate alot of people's 4th Amendment rights. It operates on less than probable cause.
The lack of reaction to this is even more disturbing though. We love mocking the communist bloc "can I see your papers pleaze", yet right here in the US, stop and frisk. This should have been challenged and done away with right when it was started.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
