Stop And Frisk Finally Ruled Unconstitutional

[TheFNK]

It's not disproportionate, depending on the reason for the search.

According to the NYPD's own data it is though. You can ignore that in order to make a weak point all you like but the data is there. Waiting.

Once more.

Only 11 percent of stops in 2011 were based on a description of a violent crime suspect.

[Archangel Tyrael]

You ignored socioeconomic position. You are basically arguing the correlation of being black is the cause of higher crime rates among black people. Correlation does not equal causation, come back when you have a better argument.

Doesn't matter, you can try to twist it as much as you want.

The fact is: In the USA, blacks commit more crimes, period.
Even if it was, as you say, only related to *socioeconomic* position (which it is not), then that wouldn't make any difference, as that would still be the primary group commiting the crimes.

[prwraith]

When people feel safe driving down a Martin Luther King Dr at night.....well anywhere in the US...then we can say racism is dead

Till then you have to wonder why it's ingrained that people avoid it. What's the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of the possible dangers of this street? It's certainly not that some white guy might shoot you.

[Rukentuts]

Doesn't matter, you can try to twist it as much as you want.

The fact is: In the USA, blacks commit more crimes, period.
Even if it was, as you say, only related to poverty (which it is not), then that wouldn't make any difference, as that would still be the primary group commiting the crimes.

I don't give a shit if left handed people committed more crimes. Doesn't give you reason to stop one without probable cause.

[Linkedblade]

Spent a few hours going through the FBI crime statistics yesterday and doing some math, here are the numbers for 2011:
The following rates of murder are done proportionally, the actual percentages of the population are accounted for.

Total Murders committed by blacks in 2011: 2925
Total Murders committed by whites in 2011: 2823

White victims of black murderers: 448
Black victims of white murderers: 193

Murdering rate for blacks 7.1 / 100,000
Murdering rate for whites 1.1 / 100,000

Victimhood rate for blacks 6.7 / 100,000
Victimhood rate for whites 1.3 / 100,000

Rate of black on black murder: 84% of all murders committed by blacks
Rate of white on white murder: 93% of all murders committed by whites

Rate of black on white murder: 15% of all murders committed by blacks
Rate of white on black murder: 6% of all murders committed by whites

Conclusions:
Blacks are 7x more likely to murder than whites
Blacks are 5x more likely to be murdered than whites
Blacks are 2x more likely to murder a white than be murdered by a whites
Blacks though representing 13% of the data set committed over 50% of the murders


Numbers are arrived at using rounded percentages. National Population was rounded to 13% Black, and 78% White. The 78% White includes Hispanics because that is how the FBI tracks murder statistics

Raw Data used: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-6

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-43

You'll note in that second one that the only category where whites are arrested more often than blacks given the differences in population ratio are for alcohol related crimes. In most categories blacks are charged at a rate 2 to 3 times their population ratio.

Good information, but it is irrelevant. The OP is about stop a frisks in NYCm not the entire nation.

[Deleted]

Doesn't matter, you can try to twist it as much as you want.

The fact is: In the USA, blacks commit more crimes, period.
Even if it was, as you say, only related to *socioeconomic* position (which it is not), then that wouldn't make any difference, as that would still be the primary group commiting the crimes.

I'm identifying the problem, you are just spewing "BLACKS COMMIT MORE CRIME".

[smelltheglove]

Doesn't matter, you can try to twist it as much as you want.

The fact is: In the USA, blacks commit more crimes, period.
Even if it was, as you say, only related to poverty (which it is not), then that wouldn't make any difference, as that would still be the primary group commiting the crimes.

your argument is based on a presumption that being black makes one inherently more likely to be criminal, regardless of circumstance. however you try to frame your argument this is what is boils down to. and that is the very definition of racist

[TheFNK]

Doesn't matter, you can try to twist it as much as you want.

The fact is: In the USA, blacks commit more crimes, period.
Even if it was, as you say, only related to poverty (which it is not), then that wouldn't make any difference, as that would still be the primary group commiting the crimes.

Yes but there are proven better methods for dealing with this. Increased patrols in high crime areas, police/community partnerships, specific units targeting specific crimes (gang units, street crimes units, drug and vice units and the like) have all been proven to have FAR more impact on violent crime than S&F. The impact of S&F is hardly felt in violent crime statistics. And that is the issue at hand. I can't argue with any of that data but the fact is that it isn't relevant in this situation because the fact is that S&F isn't preventing enough of those crimes to justify the gross violations of peoples civil rights.

[Aristeus]

You ignored socioeconomic position. You are basically arguing the correlation of being black is the cause of higher crime rates among black people. Correlation does not equal causation, come back when you have a better argument.

Brown person walks down street.

White person "gasp!!! a colored I have a higher chance of being killed! in this upper middle class area because there's a brown person!"

reality - most of those crime causing brown people aren't in nice neighborhoods, chill the fuck out.

[prwraith]

your argument is based on a presumption that being black makes one inherently more likely to be criminal, regardless of circumstance. however you try to frame your argument this is what is boils down to. and that is the very definition of racist

If it's statistically accurate to assume so, is it really racist? Or just math

[Deleted]

According to the NYPD's own data it is though. You can ignore that in order to make a weak point all you like but the data is there. Waiting.

Once more.

I never said anything about violent crime. Kindly read what I said again because I think you have me confused with somebody else.

[Deleted]

Brown person walks down street.

White person "gasp!!! a colored I have a higher chance of being killed! in this upper middle class area because there's a brown person!"

reality - most of those crime causing brown people aren't in nice neighborhoods, chill the fuck out.

Yup, if i'm walking through a ghetto i'm cautious of everyone.

[Kujako]

If it's statistically accurate to assume so, is it really racist? Or just math

It can be both. The assumption that the correlation is the cause is racist, despite what the statistics say. They do not paint the full picture.

[smelltheglove]

If it's statistically accurate to assume so, is it really racist? Or just math

if one is going to ignore every other factor, yes, it's racist

[Rukentuts]

If it's statistically accurate to assume so, is it really racist? Or just math

Stating statistics isn't racist. Stopping somebody random because his race is more likely to be criminal is.

[Deleted]

If it's statistically accurate to assume so, is it really racist? Or just math

It's prejudiced because whilst it is statistically more likely to happen you also have to take into consideration what those studies don't - socioeconomic situation. There are more black people living in poorer areas, people in poorer areas are more likely to commit crime regardless.

[jaykaywhy]

So are you actually making the argument that innocent minorities should be disproportionately stopped completely randomly just because of the color skin they were born with? What you are arguing for is lazy police work. The kind of lazy police work that has not had a tangible impact in the amount of violent crime in the NYC area.

Living as a minority in NYC, I've never been stopped and frisked. But then again, I never hang out in high crime neighborhoods, don't stay out till 5 AM, don't wear clothing or tattoos normally associated with gangs, and generally don't try to give off a suspicious vibe. Likewise, I have black friends that have NEVER been stopped and frisked.

While undeniably, some cops have used race as a factor in determining whether to conduct a stop and frisk, I'd say that, given the circumstances in which some people associate themselves with (aka the above factors), it becomes more coincidental than causation. If more Asians or whites, for example, started doing more of the above, then you'd probably see a corresponding increase in the number of Asians and whites that are stopped and frisked.


edit: Hypothetically, let's say there's two people walking down the street. A black man, wearing a business suit, clean haircut, well groomed, etc. Let's say also walking there's a a white guy with many visible gang-related tattoos, baggy clothing, bloodshot eyes, etc. Which one is more suspicious? I'd say the white guy, in my opinion.

Practically, between blacks and whites, which one is more likely to appear suspicious, not because of their race, but because of the way they present themselves? Most of the white guys I see in NY are hipsters or preppies.

[Kujako]

Stating statistics isn't racist. Stopping somebody random because his race is more likely to be criminal is.

Yup, much like stopping people with head shapes that phrenology says are likely to be criminals. If you start with just the statistics you miss a lot.

[Deadraline]

My dad was once frisked on his way into a hospital appointment. He is a white male. The reason for the frisking was because he was suspected to be carrying a weapon (apparently the place had just been robbed by a man wearing the same colors/types of clothing as him, and wearing a similar dark colored hat). I think that frisking someone for reasons such as my dad was frisked is fine...obviously they had a pretty good reason to want to search him.

From the video, it didn't look like the officer had any real reason to stop and frisk the guy in the video. I could be wrong but that's just how it seemed. Frisking has its place and time, but I do not think it should be allowed whenever a cop feels like just doing it as a way to racial profile in hopes of turning up some drugs or illegal weapons or whatever. Since the majority of times they don't find anything anyways on people. It seems like a waste of time and resources to spend hours on the clock when they could be doing something to actually prevent a crime. I don't think there should be an outright ban on it all together, but there definitely needs to be more ground rules to when it is allowed. Such as when a crime has been committed and you see someone that fits the description of the suspect obviously there is a good probable cause that most people will be understanding towards. Not just black male, but black male with a beard, hat, sunglasses, black jacket over a white shirt, etc. type of thing. They must fit the description almost to a T in order to be searched.

It has gotten far too out of hand with racial profiling, and I too am not one to always call the race card when it comes to things like this, but when statistics and laws have had to be put in place because it really is out of hand, then we know it is more than just pulling the race card and we have a real problem in our society. Like I said though, frisking can be a necessary thing police have to do, I just think there needs to be a real good reason for it to go down and that they need to inform the person they are frisking of that reason and have some type of tangible evidence the reason they are stating is not made up. (A witness report matching the description of the person being frisked would be a good start). Obviously there are more things that would need to be set in place and I won't go into it fully because it would just take forever to work out an entire system that would have minimal number of holes in it, but it would be the best way to start.

[Archangel Tyrael]

I'm identifying the problem, you are just spewing "BLACKS COMMIT MORE CRIME".

Ok, let's take a look then:

The United States determines the official poverty rate using poverty thresholds that are issued each year by the Census Bureau. The thresholds represent the annual amount of cash income minimally required to support families of various sizes.

A family is counted as poor if its pretax money income is below its poverty threshold. Money income does not include noncash benefits such as public housing, Medicaid, employer-provided health insurance and food stamps[2].

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010, Report P60, n. 238, p. 61.


Category
Number (in thousands)

All children under 18

16, 401

22.0


White only, non-Hispanic

5,002

12.4


Black

4,817

38.2


Hispanic

6,110

35.0


Asian

547

13.6

How does poverty differ across subgroups?

In 2010, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.1 percent of Asians.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010, Report P60, n. 238, Table B-2, pp. 68-73.

Hispanics are almost as likely to live with your so called socioeconomic problems, yet they still don't commit crimes at the same rate as blacks.
Why?