nyc stop and frisk

[blugiant]

wat a ting annadda tredd xxposinn institutional racism ann blakk silence


more black men were stop and frisk by nypd dan de population aff black men living inn nyc

no wander ramarley walk inn imm house wen imm saw dem

[blugiant]

Re: nyc stop and frisk

NYPD Stop And Frisks: 15 Shocking Facts About A Controversial Program



Earlier this week, the NYCLU released a report on NYPD stop and frisks. The report prompted Public Advocate (and likely mayoral candidate) Bill de Blasio to call for an internal audit of the program. Other politicians, including Jumaane Williams, Christine Quinn, Scott Stringer, and John Liu have also called for stop and frisk reform.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly have continued to defend the use of the program from criticism, saying it saves lives.



Here are 15 shocking facts about NYPD stop and frisks.

1. "In Brownsville, Brooklyn In 2009, 93 Out Of Every 100 Residents Were Stopped By The NYPD"


2. The NYPD Can Stop And Frisk You In Your Building

"Operation Clean Halls," has been in effect since 1991. As Matt Taibbi describes, "it allows police to execute so-called "vertical patrols" by going up into private buildings and conducting stop-and-frisk searches in hallways –- with the landlord’s permission."

The NYPD conducted 240,000 vertical patrols in 2003, and according to the NYCLU -- who has filed a lawsuit against the police department regarding Clean Halls -- "virtually every private apartment building [in the Bronx] is enrolled in the program," and "in Manhattan alone, there are at least 3,895 Clean Halls Buildings."


3. A Hugely Disproportional Number Of Blacks And Latinos Are Stopped And Frisked By The NYPD

4. The NYPD Is Stop-And-Frisk Happy

Since 2003, after Mayor Bloomberg took office, NYPD stop and frisks have increased 600 percent. In 2011, a record 684, 330 stops were conducted by New York City police officers. In the first three months of 2012, the NYPD stopped and frisked people 203,500 times. In the same three months last year, the NYPD stopped people 183,326 times.


5. More Young Black Men Were Stopped By The NYPD In 2011 Than There Are Young Black Men in New York City

6. The NYPD Can Was Allowed To Stop And Frisk You In A Livery Cab

The Taxi/Livery Inspection Program (TRIP), was designed to prevent livery cab drivers from being robbed. Livery cabs who engaged in the program had placards that allowed the NYPD to pull over the car and search the vehicle. NYPD officers would often frisk the passengers inside.

After a lawsuit filed by the NYCLU last year, however, Ray Kelly has ordered cops to stop enforcing the program.

From The New York Daily News:

The NYPD operational order, issued on April 27, is a direct result of a lawsuit filed by two men who say they were forced out of livery cars and searched by cops, police sources said. In separate incidents, both men accused police of racial profiling and unlawful searches.


7. The NYPD Uses Force Against Black And Latinos More Than Whites

stop and frisk nypd force


8. With Huge Increase In Stop And Frisks, Only Minor Increase In Guns Found

The NYPD argues this shows the effectiveness of stop and frisk, saying the practice has prevented people from carrying guns on the street.

stop and frisk nypd


9. Small Percentage Actually Involved In Violent Crime

The NYPD and local politicians have repeatedly defended the racial disparity in stops by saying minorities are disproportionately involved in violent crime. In 2011, however, in only 10.5 percent of stops did cops record "violent criminal activity" as justification for the stop.


10. NYPD Will Stop You For 'Inappropriate Attire Off Season'

Also, for visible bulges in your pocket. And, in 51.3 percent of the stops in 2011, cops cited "furtive movements" as justification for the stops.


11. Many Stops Are Unconstitutional

When the Supreme Court deemed stop and frisk a legal practice, they set up a standard of "reasonable suspicion" under which cops “must be able to point to specific and articulable facts.” To rely on “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or [a] ‘hunch’ ” is not permitted. In almost one out of three stops, according to The Center For Constitutional Rights, the NYPD fails to meet this standard:

Nearly 150,000 stops over the last six years are facially unconstitutional and lack any legal justification. All together, 30 percent of all stops are unconstitutional, underlining a severe lack of adequate officer oversight in the NYPD.


12. The Vast Majority Of Those Stopped Are Innocent

Nine out of 10 of those stopped in 2011 were neither arrested nor given summonses.


13. Whites Are Almost Twice As Likely To Be Found With A Weapon

The NYPD and politicians have repeatedly justified the racial disparity in stop and frisks saying that they cops essentially go where the guns are, i.e. minority neighborhoods. Yet, only 1.9 percent of frisks in 2011 turned up weapons and interestingly, according to the NYCLU, "a weapon was found in only 1.8 percent of blacks and Latinos frisked, as compared to a weapon being found in 3.8 percent of whites frisked."


14. The NYPD Faces Numerous Stop And Frisk Lawsuits

From The Village Voice:

In the month of January alone, more than three dozen lawsuits alleging improper stop-and-frisks were filed, based on a Voice reading of the complaints. Extrapolated, that means that the city could be sued more than 400 times this year alone just on improper stops.

If each case settles for a minimum of $10,000, that's at least $4 million in cost to taxpayers, not including the cost to the police department in work hours assembling the documents and removing cops from the street to be deposed, and the cost to the corporation counsel in paying lawyers to defend those cases. One wonders how much money the city is willing to spend on this litigation just to stick with the police commissioner's campaign. (We asked the city law department this question but did not receive a response.)

15. Stop And Frisks Don't Always Drive Down Murder Statistics

It is true that the first decade of the aughts in New York City has seen significantly fewer murders than say, the 1980s, when there were about 2,000 slayings a year. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, and others believe this drop is largely due to stop and frisks taking guns off the street. The link, however, between increased stop and frisks and lower murder rates could be a tenuous one. From The New York Times:

In 2002, when Mr. Kelly last took office, officers stopped 97,296 New Yorkers and the city reported 587 homicides. Last year, those numbers were 685,724 and 532.

And from WNYC:

Last week, the NYPD said stop-and-frisk was used more than 200,000 times in the first quarter of this year – a 10 percent jump from the same period last year. The data covers the period from January to March. So far this year homicides are down by 19 percent over last year.

But of the 13 precincts where homicides were up, stop and frisks increased in six over the same reporting period last year. And in the remaining seven, stop and frisks were down.

“There is no evidence that stop and frisk is lowering or suppressing the murder rate in New York City,” said Chris Dunn, spokesman for the NYCLU, in a statement. “Murders have dropped steadily since 1990.”


...

[blugiant]

Re: nyc stop and frisk

imagine wen nypd stop ann frisk oyinbo dem more likelee fe find illegal guns ann drugs butt dem more likelee fe stop ann frisk young blakk men

mii wandar iff de report iss based pon nypd reports oww manee stop ann frisk neva gitt logged. soo de numba aff blakk men stapp ann frisk bye de nypd cood be a latt iigha


de shame a de matter iss dat itt da nypd quota system under billionaire mike iss responsible ann dat y wen sum police afficers retire dem start fe publicallyy xxpose itt

[jah_yout]

Re: nyc stop and frisk

this kind of police state tactics on the black man will continue until the mental slavery ease up and people fight back with the correct weapons;

that poor excuse for a human being called mayor bloomberg is part of the system...the age-old amerikkkan ****stem which operates on the principle of enslaving/incarcerating/criminalizing the black man

[blugiant]

Re: nyc stop and frisk

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this kind of police state tactics on the black man will continue until the mental slavery ease up and people fight back with the correct weapons;

that poor excuse for a human being called mayor bloomberg is part of the system...the age-old amerikkkan ****stem which operates on the principle of enslaving/incarcerating/criminalizing the black man </div></div>

jy de way mii ear sum yuths chattinn

[blugiant]

Re: nyc stop and frisk

Stopping Short on Stop and Frisk
NYT reports racist policy but won’t call for its end

By Janine Jackson

The New York Times (12/1/99) reported in 1999 the finding of an investigation by state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer that the New York Police Department’s “stop and frisk” program unfairly targeted black and Hispanic people.

“Police officials have long contended that the disparity was based on the fact that most people are stopped in poor, high-crime neighborhoods, many of which have a majority of black and Hispanic residents,” the story explained. “But the attorney general’s analysis found that, even when the statistics were adjusted to take higher crime rates among minorities into account, the number of blacks and Hispanics stopped still far exceeded the number of whites stopped.”

By law, police must be able to state a “reasonable suspicion” of a crime in order to stop someone, and have a reasonable belief that a person is “armed and dangerous” before they can frisk them. The story revealed that analysts found many instances of legally unjustified stops, “cases in which officers wrote that they had stopped people who were merely standing on a corner or carrying a heavy bag,” and also noted that the city only released the records necessary for the investigation after Spitzer threatened to subpoena them.

The Times (12/4/99) reacted to the news in an editorial. The evidence of dramatic and systemic unfair police treatment based on race, the paper said, “raised troubling questions.” While Police Commissioner Howard Safir claimed that police only stop people of color who “fit the description” of suspects provided by victims, the fact that the study showed that less than a third of stops occur because officers believe the person fits a description “raised the possibility” that “judgments based on race figured in many stops.”

In sum, the revelations “should prompt police to take a closer look at the arrest process.”

The next year (4/28/00), Times readers learned about a report from the city’s Civilian Complaint Review Board showing that “police routinely fail to file the required paperwork after frisking or searching people,” though the records, called UF250s, are a key measure of police accountability. Those findings “echo a draft report by the United States Civil Rights Commission, which said that the Police Department’s own data suggested that its officers engaged in racial profiling during stop-and-frisk encounters.”

That too got an editorial response (4/30/00). The widespread failure of police to provide the basic information critical to determining the fairness of a controversial program, declared the Times, “raises questions,” and “encourages the belief that the department is hiding something.”

The Times has now delivered more than 10 years’ worth of such editorial timidities on stop and frisk, despite an equal period of solid reporting on the practice that demands that people of color accept that they can be physically and verbally harassed by state authority anywhere at any time.

When the NYPD commissioned its own research in 2007, which indicated that people of color and white people are stopped at roughly equal rates, for example, local tabloids went with “NYPD Cleared in Frisks” (Daily News, 11/21/07). But the Times’ Al Baker (11/21/07) foregrounded the study’s finding that “officers are more likely to frisk, search, arrest or give summonses to black or Hispanic people—or to use force against them.” The report didn’t provide explanation for that disparity, but Baker offered a clue, citing a passage that read, “If black suspects are likelier to flee or resist, the observed difference in rates of force may not be due to officer bias,” and noting a critic’s reaction that that sounded more like a search for justification than analysis.

The paper has reported repeatedly on the federal lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the city’s response. Readers have heard (many times) the assertion of NYPD spokesperson Paul Browne (e.g., 5/20/10) that police target black and brown people based simply on how much crime they commit; “for instance, while 55 percent of stops in the first three months of this year involved black people, 66 percent of violent crimes involved suspects described as black, he said.”

But the same story also cites Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia Law School, who disputes the numbers on violent crime, and notes that the comparison of stops of black people with crimes involving suspects identified as black (also the basis for the city’s 2007 study) is specious, as police report suspects’ race only in cases where it is known, which leaves out 7 out of 10 crimes. (A June 18, 2003, Times story reported research from the Civilian Complaint Review Board that “most street searches are based not on complaints about crimes,” in any event, “but on officers’ judgment about a suspect.”)



As well as giving opponents of stop and frisk a more respectful hearing than they were getting elsewhere (“Stop and Frisk Law Caught My Husband’s Murderers,” New York Post, 7/18/10), the Times occasionally did the sort of shoe-leather reporting that gives issues like this concreteness and complexity, like the paper’s July 12, 2010, front-pager on an eight-block area in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Brownsville, where police made some 52,000 stops in a four-year period, or “nearly one stop a year for every one of the 14,000 residents.”

The reporters—Baker, Ray Rivera and Janet Roberts—note that the high number is linked to the fact that much of the area is public housing, and police can use violations of Housing Authority rules to justify stops. They observe numerous people being stopped for entering buildings without using a key, for instance, even where locks are obviously broken. Young men of color are stopped, patted down and warrant-checked for spitting, or riding bikes on the sidewalk: “One night, 20 officers surrounded a man outside the Brownsville Houses after he would not let an officer smell the contents of his orange juice container.”

Official declamations about police discretion and the program’s “significant impact” on crime are included, but take on a different light alongside such real-world observations, including the fundamental one that few of the stops lead to arrests—1 percent in Brownsville vs. 6 percent citywide. (A Manhattan Supreme Court Justice would later say that police in housing projects “appeared to be routinely flouting the law by questioning people without legal justification”—New York Times, 12/23/10.)

The Brownsville story also provided a little background on Terry v. Ohio, the 1968 Supreme Court case that allows police to detain and search someone without probable cause to arrest, if they have a “reasonable suspicion” the person “has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.” The officer in that case, readers were told, “had patrolled the same streets of downtown Cleveland for 30 years looking for pickpockets and shoplifters. By contrast, the nearly 200 officers who operate” in Brownsville “are largely on their first assignment out of the academy.”

Even a suggestion of alternative approaches, like smarter, community-based policing, is notable in a media conversation where alternatives are generally unmentioned, leaving the impression that we must choose between fairness and crime.

The Times’ subsequent editorial (7/14/10) was all the more disheartening. Opposing the NYPD plan to maintain a permanent database with the names of every person stopped, whether or not they are arrested, the Times cited its Brownsville report, declaring, “It is simply unacceptable to put innocent New Yorkers under permanent suspicion because they happened to be walking down a street in a minority neighborhood.”

Of course, research shows black and brown people more likely to be stopped whatever neighborhood they’re in—high-crime or low-crime, where people of color are the majority and where they aren’t. As the paper reported in 1999.


When data emerged showing that, largely due to stop and frisk, black and Hispanic people have higher arrest rates for marijuana, despite using it at lower rates than white people, the Times’ Jim Dwyer engaged the hypocrisy of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who famously declared, “You bet I did. And I enjoyed it,” when asked if he’d smoked pot.

“A Smell of Pot And Privilege In the City” (7/21/10) contrasted marijuana arrests in Brownsville (3,109 for every 100,000 residents in a three-year period) with those on the Upper East Side (20 for every 100,000 residents). Of the debate over pot’s legalization, Dwyer wrote: “In truth, in New York, the debate was over before it began. For blacks and Latinos, it is very, very illegal. But not in Mr. Bloomberg’s neighborhood.”

More recently (6/15/11), Dwyer interrogated the mayor’s dismissal of the concern that young people’s arrests would hinder their life chances—questioning mayoral aide Frank Barry’s assertion that “they are not saddled with criminal records because those records are sealed.” Wrote Dwyer, “Asked if the mayor’s office believed that people who had been arrested but had received a dismissal could honestly answer ‘No’ if they were ever questioned by employers or colleges, Mr. Barry did not directly reply.”

The paper’s editorial on the matter (9/27/11) called for lawmakers to “investigate” the practices that have led to hundreds of thousands of arrests. The program has “damaged young lives,” said the paper. As such, it “deserves deeper scrutiny.”

The next month, the Times (10/18/11) reported the case of Staten Island officer Michael Daraghjati, who told a friend he had “fried another [censored].... No big deal,” after falsifying an arrest report on a man he had stopped and searched without finding anything, who had questioned the officer’s reason for stopping him. The next day’s editorial enjoined lawmakers “to investigate whether others on the force are engaging in similar practices.”

The following month (11/7/11) the Times endorsed the creation of the independent oversight agency called for “almost 20 years ago,” declaring that charges of racism in stop and frisk (along with high-profile corruption cases) “raised disturbing doubts” about the police department and “its ability to root out its own problems.” Some sort of oversight is needed, the paper said, as “right now there is no way of judging whether the recent scandals and other complaints are the exception or a sign of far deeper problems.”

It’s hard not to conclude that for the moral arbiters at the country’s “paper of record,” the jury will be out forever. No amount of evidence that an abhorrent practice is occurring, unproven in its claims of benefit but proven in its harms, which are myriad and severe, will spur the paper beyond calls for more research, scrutiny or oversight.