Posted on 06/28/2013 11:25:41 AM PDT by Olog-hai
On the defense after the City Council passed a pair of bills designed to curb the NYPD’s controversial stop-and-frisk tactic and other alleged abuses, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said today that his critics had it backwards when they accuse the police of stopping too many black and Latino men. In fact, he bluntly declared the opposite to be true if viewed through a lens of who commits murders.
“I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little,” Mr. Bloomberg argued during his Friday morning WOR radio show with John Gambling. “It’s exactly the reverse of what they say. I don’t know where they went to school, but they certainly didn’t take a math course. Or a logic course.”
Mr. Bloomberg, repeating a line similar to one Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has used before, was contending that the NYPD’s stops should be compared to the racial breakdown of murder suspects, not the the city’s overall demographics. …
(Excerpt) Read more at politicker.com ...
“Crackuhz!!!!!
Weiner should win the white vote over Quinn (the City Council speaker who let pro-criminal legislation out of committee so it could pass with a majority of votes while she voted symbolically against it), and Bill Thompson, a black pol who's against stop-and-frisk, will win the black vote (~25%). The question of who wins the Hispanic vote (~25%) will decide the Democratic primary, and the NYC mayoral race.
It’s not random. It’s based upon behavior.
This is why I refuse to travel to NYC. I know someone who got a “stop and frisk” because they were wearing a jacket, in the fall. The cop claimed they were wearing one to conceal a gun.
A black businessman (who was one of the handful of St. Louis city residents who voted for the referendum) and I were discussing the recent passage of RTC. I brought up the referendum results, and said I could not understand why blacks had been so uniformly against the measure. The proposal was a "shall issue" one, where if you satisfied the requirements (training, fingerprints, no criminal record, no mental illness, etc.) you couldn’t be denied the permit just because the sheriff didn’t like the idea of people besides the police having guns. The businessman stared at me.
"I thought you were good at math," he said. I allowed as to how I felt that I was. "Then you must never have taken Statistics and Probability." I told him I had done this also, and that it had been one of the most rewarding math classes I had ever taken (and incidentally was taught by Amherst’s professor Denton, who is black.) "Then you must be cowed enough by political correctness to never think of applying statistics and probability to anything involving race." Finally I admitted that this last accusation might be true.
"Then I am going to ask you two true-or-false questions. One: Do blacks in the city of St. Louis have large extended families?" I answered in the affirmative. "Two: Is it true that in St. Louis, over 40% of the black males between the ages of 17 and 25 have criminal records?" I told him that was also true, unfortunately.
"So here is the important question: What are the chances of a black person of voting age in St. Louis having at least one relative with a criminal record? Assume we define ‘relative’ broadly, to include the young men who father the children of our female relatives, whether married to them or not." He sat there waiting for my answer.
"Are we talking fathers, stepfathers, uncles, brothers, stepbrothers, male cousins, sons, stepsons, nephews, mothers’ boyfriends, aunts' boyfriends, sisters’ boyfriends, daughters’ boyfriends, stepdaughters’ boyfriends, female cousins’ boyfriends, nieces’ boyfriends, as well as anyone actually married to a female relative?" I asked. He nodded. "Then I’d say there's nearly 100% probability that at least one relative would have a criminal record." He smiled at me like a teacher who has just gotten the right answer from one of his slower students.
"So," I said, "I'm to believe that the black sentiment in St. Louis was ‘I wish young Tyrone would stop robbing people, but I don’t want one of the people he robs to shoot him dead.’ Is that it?" I asked.
"You’ve got it exactly," he told me.
"But why? I mean, honestly, if some guy was married to my cousin and mugged people for a living, I’d figure he was making his own choices and could damn well take the chance of being blasted. I wouldn’t vote away my rights to help his sorry ass."
"What if it wasn’t just your one cousin’s husband, but 40% of all your male relatives between the ages of 18 and 25? What if that was, oh, I don’t know, a dozen people?" Suddenly I didn’t know what to say.
"You don’t feel that way," I said finally.
"I’m an Uncle Tom. I’ve recently come to realize that I now have very few black friends."
This statement filled me with an ineffable sadness. I know that we will get Right-To-Carry here in Missouri, even if the Governor vetoes it. That’s not the issue. And every black Missourian with a criminal record isn’t going to get shot by an armed citizen—we all know that, too. In over 98%** of the cases where a licenseholder encounters a criminal, he stops the crime without firing a shot. It’s that way in Atlanta and every other big city with a large black population in a Right-To-Carry state, so there’s no reason to think it would be any different in Kansas City or St. Louis.
But the O.J. trial and what the black businessman said has stuck with me. What hope can we have, I wonder, if the values that blacks hold dear are mutually exclusive of those held by whites?
I guess I just have a simplistic out-of-date idea about what the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable search-and-seizure means. To me it means a cop can't come up to you and frisk you just because he wants to.
Here's the Wikipedia article on the "Terry Stop". It says that they have to have a reasonable suspicion of a crime. That's not the same as random.
Wait a minute....Bloomberg and his golden ilk were a big part of feathering the nest for illegals called “sanctuary cities” that the rest of us are forced to live in and deal with the crime. He’s a big part of the problem, not the solution.
http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-new-york-to-become-sanctuary-city-for-illegal-aliens
That’s a really interesting analysis.
The folks who are against this practice in NYC describe a practice that sounds more random than a Terry stop — no “reasonable suspicion based on specific articulable facts” is present, so they say. That doesn’t mean they’re telling it like it is, though.
Ummm. Wow.
The recipients of Terry stops may claim that they are random, the NYPD says they are not.
The numbers suggest that time and resources are not available for random searches - there are probably not enough police to make it through all the searches that have a reasonable basis, let alone inventing excuses for extra searches.
Anyone who has mastered grammar school math should be able to work this out.
The ACLU has been fighting against the NYPD doing systematic Terry stops since Giuliani was elected the first time.
After two decades of courts upholding the Constitutionality of NYPD procedures, Eric Holder has decided to intervene and take up the jihad against the NYPD.
NYPD should focus more on gays. That’s one group that would actually volunteer to be stopped and frisked.
On a per capita basis, Holder's people are known to kill people at 10x the frequency of non-Hispanic whites. Would they lie? Nosirreebob - they're straight shooters, one and all. Stone killers some of them might be, but they draw the line at lying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.