NYPD Commissioner admitted that cops target minorites in stop & frisk

[revelarts]

Ray Kelly admitted cops target blacks, Hispanics in 'stop-frisk,' state lawmaker testifies (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/lawmaker_kelly_admits_testifies_F8DQIu4NKVwsEm8XvH JgNM)
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly admitted that cops target blacks and Hispanics for the city's controversial "stop and frisk" program to keep guns off the street, a state lawmaker testified this morning.
State Sen. Eric Adams, D-Brooklyn, said Kelly made the startling admission during a July 2010 meeting in Manhattan with then-Gov. David Paterson and other officials.
Adams, a former NYPD captain, said he complained that a "disproportionate" number of blacks and Hispanics were being subjected to the controversial crime-fighting program.
According to Adams, Kelly "stated that he targeted or focused on that group because he wanted to instill fear in them that any time they leave their homes they could be targeted by police."
Adams said he was "amazed" and "shocked" by Kelly's alleged remarks, adding: "I told him that was illegal."
He said Kelly responded by asking: "How else are we going to get rid of guns?"
The judge in the "stop and frisk" trial this morning invited NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly to take the witness stand and testify about the controversial crime-fighting program.
During cross-examination, city lawyer Heidi Grossman tried to read from a written declaration in which Kelly denied making the remarks, but was blocked by the judge, who called it a "back door" method of admitting testimony from the city's top cop.
Manhattan federal Judge Shira Scheindlin then publicly invited Kelly to take the stand, saying: "If he'd like to come here, he's welcome in this courtroom."
The NYPD didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Plaintiffs in the case sought to use Kelly as a witness for their class-action suit, which claims the NYPD illegally targets minorities for stops and seeks the appointment of a court-ordered monitor.
But Kelly was barred from testifying after the city refused to schedule a pre-trial deposition on grounds that he's "too busy" running the NYPD, plaintiffs' lawyer Jonathan Moore said.
Moore said the plaintiffs would probably oppose any last-minute attempt to have Kelly testify, saying: "In civil cases, you're not allowed to do trial by ambush."
Moore also said Kelly would likely only offer testimony that had been "scripted" for him by city lawyers.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/lawmaker_kelly_admits_testifies_F8DQIu4NKVwsEm8XvH JgNM



from Judges grand jury report that made the class action suit possible


"...It is Indisputable that the NYPD has an Enormous stop and frisk program.
there were2.8 million documented stops between 2004 and 2009. those stops were made pursuant to policy designed implemented and monitored by the NYPD administration...."
"...evidence shows that the stop and frisk program is centralized and hierarchical...."
http://ccrjustice.org/floyd


http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/judge-allows-class-action-status-in-stop-and-frisk-lawsuit/




<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rfJHx0Gj6ys?feature=player_embedded" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>


NYPD quotas for stops, quotas for arrest.
informant cop "...we are not here to protect or to help..."
informant cop "...if you don't make arrest per month you are labeled a "ZERO"..."
"my sister wont come to my home anymore, because she feels like she's going to be stopped and arrested"
"...I've been stopped over 14 times frisked and not arrested..."
".. a review of your own reports show that more whites you've stopped have guns than minorities,..."

Mayor and Police Claim the program "works" "keeps people safe". where have i heard this before

Sgt Berrelly blows whistle that the much lauded Low Crime stats are because many of the harsher crimes are downgraded to lower crimes, he finnally turned over his to review and was punnished by being moved from his supervisor job to a new position midnight shift a a local precint.

"many crime reports were tossed out" "they disappeared" no crime report means lower crime rate.

[jimnyc]

Not agreeing or disagreeing, but have a question right off the bat:


NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly admitted that cops target blacks and Hispanics for the city's controversial "stop and frisk" program to keep guns off the street, a state lawmaker testified this morning.
State Sen. Eric Adams, D-Brooklyn, said Kelly made the startling admission during a July 2010 meeting in Manhattan with then-Gov. David Paterson and other officials.
Adams, a former NYPD captain, said he complained that a "disproportionate" number of blacks and Hispanics were being subjected to the controversial crime-fighting program.
According to Adams, Kelly "stated that he targeted or focused on that group because he wanted to instill fear in them that any time they leave their homes they could be targeted by police."
Adams said he was "amazed" and "shocked" by Kelly's alleged remarks, adding: "I told him that was illegal."
He said Kelly responded by asking: "How else are we going to get rid of guns?"

Have the others in attendance admitted to these statements?

[SassyLady]

Who causes the majority of crimes? Shouldn't the police be targeting those groups regardless of their race? I don't think minorities should get a pass just because they are minorities and it would be un pc to target them.

[aboutime]

Darn those NYPD cops. We all know. They should spend more of their time PROFILING Gray haired, blind, deaf, Old ladies with broken limbs in wheel chairs.
Why would anyone feel a need to target minorities who create, and practice increasing the Pick-pocket, purse-snatching, drive-by shooting, smash and cash robberies while Raising the Crime rates in their own communities, and on their own people???

HUH??

[taft2012]

The New York State Senate has now reached the statistical truth that a NYS Senator is more likely to lose his seat due to being arrested than being voted out of office.

But putting that aside, some background on Senator Adams.

He is a retired member of the NYPD. He was the leader of a group of black officers that spent his entire career mouthing off about a litany of perceived racial issues affecting black cops. For years he'd speak on television programs, interviews by newspapers and magazine, constantly criticizing Commissioner Kelly.

Leaders of such groups are usually given a wide latitude to publicly discuss their concerns without repercussions from the Commissioner. And Adams took full advantage of this, giving the Commissioner "report cards" with all failing grades, and other such childish attention seeking behavior. Imagine if you were a Microsoft employee and went around doing interviews giving Bill Gates failing grades.... how long do you think you would have lasted?

But so it is with public employment.

However, in one televised interview Adams went beyond his normal race pimping and began discussing some specifics of the NYPD's counter-terrorism programs. Now to discuss these matters in a public forum or with the media, a member of the Department needs to first secure the approval of the Commissioner. If approved, very strict parameters of what may be said are laid out.

Adams did not get that permission beforehand, he shot his big-mouth off about things he wasn't well-versed in, and put a lot of crap into the public discussion that should not have been out there at the time.

Adams was brought up on Department charges, a court martial of sorts. And of course, he bellyached that he was being picked on because he's black, etc., etc. He was found guilty, saw the writing on the wall, and quickly retired. He won an election for the NYS Senate, and his very first speech on the floor of the Senate was a whining diatribe about how Senators are underpaid.

Is Eric Adams above lying and/or misrepresenting what the Police Commissioner said? I think the answer to that is self-evident.

[aboutime]

The New York State Senate has now reached the statistical truth that a NYS Senator is more likely to lose his seat due to being arrested than being voted out of office.

But putting that aside, some background on Senator Adams.

He is a retired member of the NYPD. He was the leader of a group of black officers that spent his entire career mouthing off about a litany of perceived racial issues affecting black cops. For years he'd speak on television programs, interviews by newspapers and magazine, constantly criticizing Commissioner Kelly.

Leaders of such groups are usually given a wide latitude to publicly discuss their concerns without repercussions from the Commissioner. And Adams took full advantage of this, giving the Commissioner "report cards" with all failing grades, and other such childish attention seeking behavior. Imagine if you were a Microsoft employee and went around doing interviews giving Bill Gates failing grades.... how long do you think you would have lasted?

But so it is with public employment.

However, in one televised interview Adams went beyond his normal race pimping and began discussing some specifics of the NYPD's counter-terrorism programs. Now to discuss these matters in a public forum or with the media, a member of the Department needs to first secure the approval of the Commissioner. If approved, very strict parameters of what may be said are laid out.

Adams did not get that permission beforehand, he shot his big-mouth off about things he wasn't well-versed in, and put a lot of crap into the public discussion that should not have been out there at the time.

Adams was brought up on Department charges, a court martial of sorts. And of course, he bellyached that he was being picked on because he's black, etc., etc. He was found guilty, saw the writing on the wall, and quickly retired. He won an election for the NYS Senate, and his very first speech on the floor of the Senate was a whining diatribe about how Senators are underpaid.

Is Eric Adams above lying and/or misrepresenting what the Police Commissioner said? I think the answer to that is self-evident.



taft. Everyone knows the old adage, in reference to your last question above.

"You catch more (f) LIES with (h)MONEY, than you do with (crooks) vinegar."

[Voted4Reagan]

yeah...Liberals want you to do stop and frisk in neighborhoods like Breezy point and Douglaston.

If you did it in Harlem would the majority of folks stopped and frisked be white or black?

they target high crime areas... not people.

[revelarts]

I expected as much from some you.

And then you'll wonder why most minorities don't respect the police. When you endorse the idea that all should minorities be harassed by cops daily just because they are black... Just in case... and to keep them in fear.
All assumed guilty of being black/brown on the street.

How many times is a young man with no criminal record suppose enjoy be frisked for no reason for walking in his own neighborhood? it's happened to some over 15 times.

but i'm sure some of you think they just haven't found out what he's done ..yet.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I expected as much from some you.


How many times is a young man with no criminal record suppose enjoy be frisked for no reason for walking in his own neighborhood? it's happened to some over 15 times.

but i'm sure some of you think they just haven't found out what he's done ..yet.

OK, Rev lets have a healthy dose of reality here. That kid getting frisk 15 times should have figured out long before the 15th time that it is because his damn homies are ffing doped up , drug selling, murdering , robbing and raping bastards. If he is too damn stupid to figure that out he will be right in there with them soon enough so why worry about the guy?
I never give false cover to police corruption or misdeeds (as evidenced by my past posts) but damn if we can not fight crime directly where it is happening we should just disband all police and let's have Wild West lawlessness again.
The progressives toss out all these let's give dictatorial control and special status to minorities as if that solves everything. That would be chaos and plunge us into third world status overnight almost. The progressives are dumbasses from hell in my opinion. Always so damn ready to toss out the Rule of Law and common sense in exchange for some so-called super enlightened shit!
The minorities consist of individuals just as do all groups. Those same individuals get to make choices in life. THEY MAKE THOSE CHOICES AND BY EVERY REALITY SHOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.

Let's stop this excuse making for the many that choose what seems to be the easy way to make money--CRIME.

WAS A TIME WHEN THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS UNDERSTOOD THAT!
NOW WE HAVE A CORRUPTED POLITICAL PARTY CATERING TO THEM AND PROMOTING POLICIES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO "PAYBACK" FOR EVIL DEEDS WE NEVER DID.--Tyr

[taft2012]

When you endorse the idea that all should minorities be harassed by cops daily just because they are black... .

I re-read the thread. I don't know who that was meant for, but I didn't see anybody say that.

[revelarts]

I re-read the thread. I don't know who that was meant for, but I didn't see anybody say that.

According to Adams, Kelly "stated that he targeted or focused on that group because he wanted to instill fear in them that any time they leave their homes they could be targeted by police."


there are few people that said that targeting groups is appropriate Taft. what thread are you reading?
what i posted doesn't describe stopping crime it just shows harassment for being black or brown. I've post multiple items about bankers that have defrauded BILIONS and NOW TRILLIONS yet no one comments there, no outrage no call for police. but Young men who have done nothing deserve/should live with being harassed because "it's a high crime area". it's laughable.
It's the opposite of probably cause. the only cause is being black or Brown therefore i stop you, frisk you, ask you all of biz, and why are you are walking in your own neighborhood. I must assume you or your homeies have committed a crime. without ANY evidence. ZERO.

You shouldn't have been born black or lived in this area, the constitution doesn't apply to you here, even though none of this harassment is stopping real crime. And we have to meet a stop&frisk and arrest quota. And no one will ever believe you over me. it's all fine and sense so many non black/brown people don't have to be concerned about themselves or their children's false quota driven arrest.

I'm reminded of the "what would you do " episodes that where posted here a while back and the outrage over making whites look bad.
when all it showed was the attitude revealed here by some.
one showed a group of 4 white boys spray painting a car in a park. Some white passersby asked a few questions and were told by the kids to mind their own biz and the people walked off. no calls to the police i believe. In the same park, at the same time, there were 3 young black boys pretending to be asleep in a parked car. And the phones rang off the hook at the police station.
WHY? what crime was being committed? when the white guys were in plain view committing crime are they just young rascals? But black kids sleeping in a car, is perceived to be hard core criminal activity. In their own neighborhoods or elsewhere, they are targets.
that's just the way it is.

And it's wrong.

[taft2012]

there are few people that said that targeting groups is appropriate Taft. what thread are you reading?

No, I'm not seeing that at all.

Then again, I'm not a knee jerk liberal.

[taft2012]

According to Adams, Kelly "stated that he targeted or focused on that group because he wanted to instill fear in them that any time they leave their homes they could be targeted by police."


there are few people that said that targeting groups is appropriate Taft. what thread are you reading?
what i posted doesn't describe stopping crime it just shows harassment for being black or brown. I've post multiple items about bankers that have defrauded BILIONS and NOW TRILLIONS yet no one comments there, no outrage no call for police. but Young men who have done nothing deserve/should live with being harassed because "it's a high crime area". it's laughable.
It's the opposite of probably cause. the only cause is being black or Brown therefore i stop you, frisk you, ask you all of biz, and why are you are walking in your own neighborhood. I must assume you or your homeies have committed a crime. without ANY evidence. ZERO.



You're believing bullshit, because you want to believe bullshit.

Stop throwing around your little buzzwords and catchphrases too.

Yesterday you were tossing around the fallacy that a warrant is needed for searches, and can't be done without a warrant.

Today the fallacy is that probably cause (presumably probable cause) is needed by the police to stop some one. Again wrong.

I know you want this to be real, but it's not. You're making it up.

I want to find Scarlett Johansson in my bed, but it never happens.

[jimnyc]

I expected as much from some you.

And then you'll wonder why most minorities don't respect the police. When you endorse the idea that all should minorities be harassed by cops daily just because they are black... Just in case... and to keep them in fear.
All assumed guilty of being black/brown on the street.

How many times is a young man with no criminal record suppose enjoy be frisked for no reason for walking in his own neighborhood? it's happened to some over 15 times.

but i'm sure some of you think they just haven't found out what he's done ..yet.

You didn't answer my earlier question. Did the others in attendance backup what the commissioner said, or are we going on the word of one person? If it were illegal as Adams said, I'm curious why no action. What has the former governor stated about his words?

[revelarts]

You didn't answer my earlier question. Did the others in attendance backup what the commissioner said, or are we going on the word of one person? If it were illegal as Adams said, I'm curious why no action. What has the former governor stated about his words?

the story only mentions the testimony -under oath- I have no other Info. the Commissioner was asked to give his side in court under oath and refused. It's one police officers word against another. police never lie so who knows what to believe.
It is illegal, and that's part of what the class action suit is about.
And are the police supposed to arrest the commissioner i'm not sure what your saying?
And if the governor backs up the commissioner or doesn't, if he wasn't there or have corroborators , what good would his comments be?

[jimnyc]

the story only mentions the testimony -under oath- I have no other Info. the Commissioner was asked to give his side in court under oath and refused. It's one police officers word against another. police never lie so who knows what to believe.
It is illegal, and that's part of what the class action suit is about.
And are the police supposed to arrest the commissioner i'm not sure what your saying?
And if the governor backs up the commissioner or doesn't, if he wasn't there or have corroborators , what good would his comments be?

One word against the other is hard to decipher, but when several people backup comments it is easier to believe. Apparently former governor Patterson was there and I'm wondering if he backs up the words of Adams, or if anyone else heard the comments...


State Sen. Eric Adams, D-Brooklyn, said Kelly made the startling admission during a July 2010 meeting in Manhattan with then-Gov. David Paterson and other officials.

Paterson AND other officials were in attendance, and I'd be curious as to what they heard, instead of just one person.

[jimnyc]

he wanted to instill fear in them that any time they leave their homes they could be targeted by police

I've been searching, but can only find this quote on blogs and similar, and not anything from officials in attendance or the former governor.

[revelarts]

I've been searching, but can only find this quote on blogs and similar, and not anything from officials in attendance or the former governor.

So you think the whole thing is a false report maybe, no testimony to that effect?

[revelarts]

I've been searching, but can only find this quote on blogs and similar, and not anything from officials in attendance or the former governor.


http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/04/01/lawmaker-kelly-wanted-stop-and-frisk-to-instill-fear-in-minorities/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/nyregion/kelly-intended-frisks-to-instill-fear-senator-testifies.html?_r=0

http://newsone.com/2333616/eric-adams-ray-kelly-stop-and-frisk/

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/kelly-denies-admitting-nypd-targets-minorities.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323296504578396901595953048.html

[jimnyc]

So you think the whole thing is a false report maybe, no testimony to that effect?


http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/04/01/lawmaker-kelly-wanted-stop-and-frisk-to-instill-fear-in-minorities/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/nyregion/kelly-intended-frisks-to-instill-fear-senator-testifies.html?_r=0

http://newsone.com/2333616/eric-adams-ray-kelly-stop-and-frisk/

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/kelly-denies-admitting-nypd-targets-minorities.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323296504578396901595953048.html

Ok, fair enough, so the coverage extended beyond blogs. But has Paterson backed up these comments? Have any of the other officials done so? I understand that this is what Adams states, and don't know what to believe at this point as it's an accusation by one man, and I don't see others that were in attendance speaking up similarly. Why won't former Governor Paterson back up these comments? Who were the other officials involved when Adams says these comments were made, and where is there testimony?

You got me wrong on this one, Rev. I've not made a choice on this yet. But as you know about me from the past, I like a lot of facts before making accusations. I'd like more than the word of one person, who may have had an axe to grind. Why don't they just subpoena those involved for answers?

[Abbey Marie]

If Kelly did say this, he must be ready to retire.

[revelarts]

Ok, fair enough, so the coverage extended beyond blogs. But has Paterson backed up these comments? Have any of the other officials done so? I understand that this is what Adams states, and don't know what to believe at this point as it's an accusation by one man, and I don't see others that were in attendance speaking up similarly. Why won't former Governor Paterson back up these comments? Who were the other officials involved when Adams says these comments were made, and where is there testimony?

You got me wrong on this one, Rev. I've not made a choice on this yet. But as you know about me from the past, I like a lot of facts before making accusations. I'd like more than the word of one person, who may have had an axe to grind. Why don't they just subpoena those involved for answers?

It seems Patterson doesn't want to comment according to the stories.
no way to tell why

i can't give you any more info than is in the reports linked above. on that specific part of the story Jim.

there's a host of other evidence that some just blow by assuming that the the police are right to target minorities, that stop and frisking without any reasonable suspicion is GOOD police work rather than unconstitutional BS.

there are quotas of stop & frisk
no one seems to mind
there are quotas for arrests
no one seems to mind
there are some crimes that are tossed in the trash bin at the station to make the crime stats look better. no one seems to mind
They kept the names and info for those stopped in a database even though they committed no crimes
No one seemed to mind
All the above and more is admitted by some NYPD officers.

But all that is the innocents Blacks and Latinos fault for being Black or Latino and living in NY with criminals who are Black and Latino. You have no constitutional rights of assumed innocents anymore too bad ho hum.

Wall st bankers get away with Billions/Trillions,. 'Banks got to make money, it's the feds. and Democrats fault.'
Bankers money laundering Billion in drug money, company fines. 'that's interesting, no comment.'
Record corps of drugs in Afghanistan. '0-well the Afghans got to eat... hearts and minds you know.'

Latino/Black kid get arrested for nothing... 'well to bad, you should have been white. Suck it up and never say its because your black because that's racist of you to say so.'

[revelarts]

there are few people that said that targeting groups is appropriate Taft. what thread are you reading?
No, I'm not seeing that at all.
Then again, I'm not a knee jerk liberal.

SassyLady
Who causes the majority of crimes? Shouldn't the police be targeting those groups regardless of their race?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SassyLady For This Useful Post:
logroller (Yesterday),Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

aboutime -rhetorically-
….Why would anyone feel a need to target minorities….
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to aboutime For This Useful Post:
SassyLady (Yesterday),taft2012 (Today),Tyr-Ziu Saxnot (Today)



Do you see it now Taft?
I wonder

[aboutime]

I expected as much from some you.

And then you'll wonder why most minorities don't respect the police. When you endorse the idea that all should minorities be harassed by cops daily just because they are black... Just in case... and to keep them in fear.
All assumed guilty of being black/brown on the street.

How many times is a young man with no criminal record suppose enjoy be frisked for no reason for walking in his own neighborhood? it's happened to some over 15 times.

but i'm sure some of you think they just haven't found out what he's done ..yet.


rev. Would you also be so serious if a minority, from the white race was walking through a known, black neighborhood wearing a hoodie? If you were a police officer in your squad car. Driving through such a neighborhood and saw three, or four white kids who were obviously not there because they lived there. Would you do the same thing to them if someone from the neighborhood called 911 to report three, or four strange kids walking down the street?????

Just wondering how far your hypocrisy goes with profiling.

[jimnyc]

It seems Patterson doesn't want to comment according to the stories.
no way to tell why

i can't give you any more info than is in the reports linked above. on that specific part of the story Jim.

there's a host of other evidence that some just blow by assuming that the the police are right to target minorities, that stop and frisking without any reasonable suspicion is GOOD police work rather than unconstitutional BS.

there are quotas of stop & frisk
no one seems to mind
there are quotas for arrests
no one seems to mind
there are some crimes that are tossed in the trash bin at the station to make the crime stats look better. no one seems to mind
They kept the names and info for those stopped in a database even though they committed no crimes
No one seemed to mind
All the above and more is admitted by some NYPD officers.

But all that is the innocents Blacks and Latinos fault for being Black or Latino and living in NY with criminals who are Black and Latino. You have no constitutional rights of assumed innocents anymore too bad ho hum.

Wall st bankers get away with Billions/Trillions,. 'Banks got to make money, it's the feds. and Democrats fault.'
Bankers money laundering Billion in drug money, company fines. 'that's interesting, no comment.'
Record corps of drugs in Afghanistan. '0-well the Afghans got to eat... hearts and minds you know.'

Latino/Black kid get arrested for nothing... 'well to bad, you should have been white. Suck it up and never say its because your black because that's racist of you to say so.'

I wonder why none of the others will testify or comment. Do you think they are involved or complicit somehow?

I don't have a problem with the NYPD or any other department targeting people. If over the past 20 years, blacks and hispanics committed the overwhelming majority of muggings/robberies, gun crimes... then it only makes sense to target them more - but I think a cop still needs a reasonable suspicion.

Quotas, I'm sure some are true and some false, IMO. What would concern me more is looking at each case individually. What matters more to me that the case is valid. If a cop made a valid arrest and has valid evidence, and especially if drugs/guns or other contraband was taken off the street - then I really couldn't care if cops initially looked at this person because he was hispanic or black.

[revelarts]

rev. Would you also be so serious if a minority, from the white race was walking through a known, black neighborhood wearing a hoodie? If you were a police officer in your squad car. Driving through such a neighborhood and saw three, or four white kids who were obviously not there because they lived there. Would you do the same thing to them if someone from the neighborhood called 911 to report three, or four strange kids walking down the street?????
Just wondering how far your hypocrisy goes with profiling.

There's no problem talking to any kids/people, they don't have to talk back.
There's no problem watching kids/people in public, they don't have to be intimidated.

If Kids are in their own neighborhood or in others neighborhoods, they don't lose their constitutional rights.
that's all AT.
Good or bad neighborhood. old, young, black, white, Latino, Asian, Muslim, biker, reporter, surfer or homeless no one loses their rights in America. At least that's the way it's suppose to be.

[aboutime]

There's no problem talking to any kids/people, they don't have to talk back.
There's no problem watching kids/people in public, they don't have to be intimidated.

If Kids are in their own neighborhood or in others neighborhoods, they don't lose their constitutional rights.
that's all AT.
Good or bad neighborhood. old, young, black, white, Latino, Asian, Muslim, biker, reporter, surfer or homeless no one loses their rights in America. At least that's the way it's suppose to be.


Tell us rev. WHAT RIGHTS have they lost, according to you?
If the police officers are doing their job, and protecting people like you?
Would you prefer they just ignore everyone who falls into the categories you named above???

[revelarts]

Tell us rev. WHAT RIGHTS have they lost, according to you?
If the police officers are doing their job, and protecting people like you?
Would you prefer they just ignore everyone who falls into the categories you named above???

There's no problem talking to any kids/people, they don't have to talk back.
There's no problem watching kids/people in public, they don't have to be intimidated.

If Kids are in their own neighborhood or in others neighborhoods, they don't lose their constitutional rights.
that's all AT.
Good or bad neighborhood. old, young, black, white, Latino, Asian, Muslim, biker, reporter, surfer or homeless no one loses their rights in America. At least that's the way it's suppose to be.

[revelarts]

I wonder why none of the others will testify or comment. Do you think they are involved or complicit somehow?

I don't have a problem with the NYPD or any other department targeting people. If over the past 20 years, blacks and hispanics committed the overwhelming majority of muggings/robberies, gun crimes... then it only makes sense to target them more - but I think a cop still needs a reasonable suspicion.

Quotas, I'm sure some are true and some false, IMO. What would concern me more is looking at each case individually. What matters more to me that the case is valid. If a cop made a valid arrest and has valid evidence, and especially if drugs/guns or other contraband was taken off the street - then I really couldn't care if cops initially looked at this person because he was hispanic or black.

I guess my problem Jim is I don't want the cops to break the law to uphold the law.
you are all about law and safety until the cops do the law breaking. then your like well the ends justify the means.

I Understand the sentiment but police powers are broad enough to allow them to do their jobs, it seems to me.
If they feel that they have to break the law daily to protect people, they should --as you've said so many times--- go to the legislators change the laws. They have no right, as LAW ENFORCEMENT officers, to break the very laws they swore to defend and uphold.

And harassing innocent people is not somewhere i want the police to feel comfortable going in any neighborhood. that's the very definition of a police state.

[jimnyc]

I guess my problem Jim is I don't want the cops to break the law to uphold the law.
you are all about law and safety until the cops do the law breaking. then your like well the ends justify the means.

I Understand the sentiment but police powers are broad enough to allow them to do their jobs, it seems to me.
If they feel that they have to break the law daily to protect people, they should --as you've said so many times--- go to the legislators change the laws. They have no right, as LAW ENFORCEMENT officers, to break the very laws they swore to defend and uphold.

And harassing innocent people is not somewhere i want the police to feel comfortable going in any neighborhood. that's the very definition of a police state.

I hear ya, and I don't think they should be breaking the law either. But common sense states to monitor those committing the most crimes. I still think they should have reasonable cause/suspicion before shaking someone down. But to profile down I don't take issue with. I'll give the cops some leniency in being aggressive in their searches for crime, but not to the point of having criminals chasing criminals.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by revelarts http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=634454#post634454)
I guess my problem Jim is I don't want the cops to break the law to uphold the law.
you are all about law and safety until the cops do the law breaking. then your like well the ends justify the means.

I Understand the sentiment but police powers are broad enough to allow them to do their jobs, it seems to me.
If they feel that they have to break the law daily to protect people, they should --as you've said so many times--- go to the legislators change the laws. They have no right, as LAW ENFORCEMENT officers, to break the very laws they swore to defend and uphold.

And harassing innocent people is not somewhere i want the police to feel comfortable going in any neighborhood. that's the very definition of a police state.


I hear ya, and I don't think they should be breaking the law either. But common sense states to monitor those committing the most crimes. I still think they should have reasonable cause/suspicion before shaking someone down. But to profile down I don't take issue with. I'll give the cops some leniency in being aggressive in their searches for crime, but not to the point of having criminals chasing criminals.

This reminds me of two fish discussing the pond of water they live in. Telling each other and the rest of us how it is in that pond and they just won't sit still for things not working out their way.

My problem with the cops is they normally obey laws, but enough do not that they do become part of the problem.

I am sure using Google we call can pull up many articles on cops gone wrong.

[Robert A Whit]

Tell us rev. WHAT RIGHTS have they lost, according to you?
If the police officers are doing their job, and protecting people like you?
Would you prefer they just ignore everyone who falls into the categories you named above???

How do cops protect us? Even the fire department does little of that since when they come to the fire, it is already destroying lives. And what the fire misses, water ruins.

My philosophy is we protect ourselves first and if lucky, some cop shows up in time to prevent crime. But usually they come way too late to prevent crime.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by revelarts http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=634361#post634361)
I expected as much from some you.

And then you'll wonder why most minorities don't respect the police. When you endorse the idea that all should minorities be harassed by cops daily just because they are black... Just in case... and to keep them in fear.
All assumed guilty of being black/brown on the street.

How many times is a young man with no criminal record suppose enjoy be frisked for no reason for walking in his own neighborhood? it's happened to some over 15 times.

but i'm sure some of you think they just haven't found out what he's done ..yet.


rev. Would you also be so serious if a minority, from the white race was walking through a known, black neighborhood wearing a hoodie? If you were a police officer in your squad car. Driving through such a neighborhood and saw three, or four white kids who were obviously not there because they lived there. Would you do the same thing to them if someone from the neighborhood called 911 to report three, or four strange kids walking down the street?????

Just wondering how far your hypocrisy goes with profiling.

Do you challenge Revs claim that most minorities do not respect the police?

Do you endorse his claim that most think blacks are unfairly targets of cops?

[aboutime]

How do cops protect us? Even the fire department does little of that since when they come to the fire, it is already destroying lives. And what the fire misses, water ruins.

My philosophy is we protect ourselves first and if lucky, some cop shows up in time to prevent crime. But usually they come way too late to prevent crime.


Well, let me tell ya Pilgrum. You should remove any, and all efforts, or options to use calling 911 from your agenda in life.

Protect yourself from those who want to harm you, and just LET IT BURN...and don't bother calling anyone for help.

[jimnyc]

Robert, this thread is specifically about the NYPD and specifically about targeting and/or frisking. Please stay on topic.

[taft2012]

It seems Patterson doesn't want to comment according to the stories.
no way to tell why

i can't give you any more info than is in the reports linked above. on that specific part of the story Jim.

there's a host of other evidence that some just blow by assuming that the the police are right to target minorities, that stop and without any reasonable suspicion is GOOD police work rather than unconstitutional BS.

Nice work. You've learned the standard of proof necessary for a stop; "reasonable suspicion." You're showing progress.


there are quotas of stop & frisk
no one seems to mind
there are quotas for arrests
no one seems to mind
there are some crimes that are tossed in the trash bin at the station to make the crime stats look better. no one seems to mind
They kept the names and info for those stopped in a database even though they committed no crimes
No one seemed to mind
All the above and more is admitted by some NYPD officers.

It's all bullshit, coming from empty suit cops who don't want to do any work. But since it fits your agenda, I guess it makes sense to run with it.

[Dilloduck]

I see several issues at play here from civil rights to legal maneuvering. Which crimes are targeted for conviction and which are ignored ? If I'm trying to put a dent in white collar crime I'm targeting whitey. It may not be fair or legal but it will catch more of em and whitey ain't gonna sue me for targeting him.

[Robert A Whit]

Well, let me tell ya Pilgrum. You should remove any, and all efforts, or options to use calling 911 from your agenda in life.

Protect yourself from those who want to harm you, and just LET IT BURN...and don't bother calling anyone for help.

neighbors are much closer. Besides, the fire department of my city once explained to me that what is left over from a burning home is trash.

If you want to, find a burned out home and haul off some trash.

I did ask two questions. I suppose one won't be accused of not replying such as is done to other posters.

[taft2012]

SassyLady
Who causes the majority of crimes? Shouldn't the police be targeting those groups regardless of their race?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SassyLady For This Useful Post:
logroller (Yesterday),Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

aboutime -rhetorically-
….Why would anyone feel a need to target minorities….
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to aboutime For This Useful Post:
SassyLady (Yesterday),taft2012 (Today),Tyr-Ziu Saxnot (Today)



Do you see it now Taft?
I wonder

No, still don't see it. Sorry.

[taft2012]

Tell us rev. WHAT RIGHTS have they lost, according to you?

It's one of those Constitutional rights that didn't exist for over 100 years until a bunch of liberal judges came along and said "Holy crap on a cracker! Look at this Constitutional right we just discovered!"

Some people are saying this is all a show for this year's mayoral race, and that a district court judge can not blanket rule Terry stops unconstitutional. But I have my doubts.

I remember about 20+ years ago, during the crack cocaine scourge, the crack cocaine was packaged for sale in very distinguishable plastic vials. The pat down during a stop is done for weapons and officer safety, not evidence. But if during such a pat down a police officer's touch was able to determine a pocketful of these vials, the US Supreme Court determined that it would be reasonable for the officer to reach into the pocket and remove these vials. If they were found to contain crack cocaine, the evidence would be admissible in court. This became known as the "plain touch" exception.

However, the New York State Supreme Court disallowed the plain touch exception in New York State. So police all over the country were allowed to arrest people based on plain touch, but not police in New York State. It's odd, but apparently a state supreme court can override the US Supreme Court in expanding the rights of criminals, but not in the expanding the power of the police.

Which brings us back to Terry stops. Theoretically, a state Supreme Court can eliminate Terry stops just like they forbade plain touch. Which would basically lead to mayhem.

An example I gave previously; a guy can be walking up and down your street at 3:00 in the morning with a tire iron. Trying all the car doors, looking into all of the cars. The police would not be able to do anything, as this would represent only "reasonable suspicion", the current standard of proof for a stop.

So the officer would watch for a while, then get called away by something else on the radio, and return an hour or so later to find a bunch of cars broken into and one actually stolen.

They're not telling you, but this is basically the type of police work they are aspiring towards.

This is also Rev's prescription for military action as well; wait until attacked. Ignore navies steaming towards us, infantries massing on our borders, etc. We must wait until fired upon.

It's like Obamacare, you have to pass it to find out what's inside it. Trust me, you don't want it.

[revelarts]

The Video here his of 4 black guys speaking to white guy with a camera who as he was driving by saw to police officers giving the black guys tickets of some kind. and leaving.

It's kind of long and rambling but basically the 4 guys describe what happened and how it's a regular occurrence for young black men a few of their points.
they live in the neighborhood,
have lived there all their lives.
they know most of the people in the all of the building adjacent to were they are standing.
some of the police in area no this as well
they have no outstanding warrants
and are not criminals.
they were not smoking... anything.
they were not drinking
they were not being loud
they were not harassing people
they were not blocking the side walk.
They did not Stash anything

they say the crime is so low in the area that in the pass several years 3 police precincts have closed nearby

what they say happened:
They were just standing there talking as you might stand and talk your neighbors outside on a nice day.
1st one set of cops roll by, then another , then the 3rd pair stops Approach, and ask each for ID.
they give ID, the cops go back to the car for several minutes then return giving each a summons for a disorderly conduct. which is barely legible

They say this happens fairly frequently.
They say at time the cops will ask for id, go to the car and return ID but not give tickets, however several months down the road you'll find that they did write a ticket and now you have outstanding tickets you never knew about until you are harassed again.

They mention that basically the police do not want young black men on the street unless they are coming or going to their homes. That it's like martial law everyday. you are harassed if you stop or congregated. (BTW this sound exactly like China, crowds of more than 5 people are broken up by police)

They believe that if the white guy had been there with them the police would not have stopped.
near the end of the youtube the police roll by again, see the camera and say to the white guy.
"welcome to the neighborhood Jerk!"
then drive off.

they 4 black guys point out how they welcomed the white guy and were ready to talk to him and be pleasant compared to how the local public servant greets strangers to the neighborhood.


This is their account take it as you will. don't ask me to defend this or that,
or answer this or that point i wasn't there. make your own judgements.
Just putting it out FYI

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F-A5cNppZus?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

[red states rule]

Damn cops? Keeping an eye of people who are most likely to commit crimes

That is like the Vice Unit concentrating on the Red Light District

[taft2012]

UPDATE: In the wake of two state senators being arrested, as well as a state assemblyman, it was revealed that one of the senators and the assemblyman were wired up for federal prosecutors to bring down other state legislators. Eight more are now under criminal investigation for corruption, including, Rev's favorite; Senator Eric Adams.

[revelarts]

Damn cops? Keeping an eye of people who are most likely to commit crimes

That is like the Vice Unit concentrating on the Red Light District

sigh -head shake-
more like Dang cops giving people tickets for not committing any crimes Red.

[red states rule]

sigh -head shake-
more like Dang cops giving people tickets for not committing any crimes Red.

More like cops PREVENTING crimes from taking place

[red states rule]

http://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/22512cartoon.jpg?w=714&h=417

[revelarts]

More like cops PREVENTING crimes from taking place

red you don't prevent crimes by accusing innocents of crimes.
it's just harassment and racist.
Sorry you seem to think being black on the street is a crime.

[red states rule]

red you don't prevent crimes by accusing innocents of crimes.
it's just harassment and racist.
Sorry you seem to think being black on the street is a crime.

Rev, YOU pulling the race card from the bottom of the deck? I never thought you would be so desperate to have to sink to that level

[revelarts]

Rev, YOU pulling the race card from the bottom of the deck? I never thought you would be so desperate to have to sink to that level

Red i post a video of 3 blacks guys apparently getting a ticketed for being black on the street
and you say the police are preventing crime and targeting the "red light district".
what is that?

harassing and Ticketing black guys in there own neighbor for nothing is what?
what would you call it?
seems your calling it good police work.

no crime, no guns, no drugs, no disturbance.
Where is the crime?
Except for being black?

IF police accuse innocent blacks ONLY because they are black
That is racist.
not Good police work
If people assume that EVERY young black male is a criminal who needs to get ticketed for being on the street that IS Racist. And illegal.
I'm not sure how we can can say otherwise. Is the only definition of white racist behavior a full blown Klansman?

You posted a cartoon of Muslim Setro-types that the police where watching. notice in your cartoon the police were JUST watching not ticketing or Frisking.
But what's going on in the picture? THEY ARE MAKING A BOMB.
The cartoon doesn't show them reading the newspapers or playing cards?
Those things are not illegal and would show that the Police ARE targeting them WITHOUT A CAUSE.

However Police watching is one thing, but if they see over time that they have no cause it's time to move on, end of story. The profile seems to have proved false, move on. No harm no foul at that point.

[taft2012]

Red i post a video of 3 blacks guys apparently getting a ticketed for being black on the street


It's true. We issues summonses for this. In the caption where is says "Offense" we write in "Being Black on the Street."

Then when we go to court we explain to the judge that the respondent "was seen being black on the street."


The judge asks the respondent if this is true. The respondent can only say "Yes, your honor. It's true. I was black on the street."

The judge, horrified, slams his gavel and shouts "GUILTY!"

:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Red i post a video of 3 blacks guys apparently getting a ticketed for being black on the street
and you say the police are preventing crime and targeting the "red light district".
what is that?

harassing and Ticketing black guys in there own neighbor for nothing is what?
what would you call it?
seems your calling it good police work.

no crime, no guns, no drugs, no disturbance.
Where is the crime?
Except for being black?

IF police accuse innocent blacks ONLY because they are black
That is racist.
not Good police work
If people assume that EVERY young black male is a criminal who needs to get ticketed for being on the street that IS Racist. And illegal.
I'm not sure how we can can say otherwise. Is the only definition of white racist behavior a full blown Klansman?

You posted a cartoon of Muslim Setro-types that the police where watching. notice in your cartoon the police were JUST watching not ticketing or Frisking.
But what's going on in the picture? THEY ARE MAKING A BOMB.
The cartoon doesn't show them reading the newspapers or playing cards?
Those things are not illegal and would show that the Police ARE targeting them WITHOUT A CAUSE.

However Police watching is one thing, but if they see over time that they have no cause it's time to move on, end of story. The profile seems to have proved false, move on. No harm no foul at that point.

Admittedly, I watched about a minute and a half...

Where is the beginning of the video? It seems to start while they have tickets in their hand already. They say they got their tickets for blocking pedestrians from walking. Have they done so before? Did they attempt to leave? Did police ask them to leave/move? It IS a legit concern to ask people to not loiter in certain areas.

The vid is 13 mins long it appears. Is it worth me watching? Do the police come back? I don't like watching one sided videos and making a determination. I made my mini determination based on the 1st minute or so and the words of the gents.

[jimnyc]

One may want to look into the person videotaping or hosting the video. The video only starts after the fact, and this person has a long history of anti-police crap. Unless I see what happened, it's nothing more than the word of a bunch of black guys on the street corner in Harlem and someone taping that has an agenda against police.

[revelarts]

This is their account take it as you will. don't ask me to defend this or that,
or answer this or that point i wasn't there. make your own judgements.
Just putting it out FYI...


Admittedly, I watched about a minute and a half...
Where is the beginning of the video? It seems to start while they have tickets in their hand already. They say they got their tickets for blocking pedestrians from walking. Have they done so before? Did they attempt to leave? Did police ask them to leave/move? It IS a legit concern to ask people to not loiter in certain areas.
The vid is 13 mins long it appears. Is it worth me watching? Do the police come back? I don't like watching one sided videos and making a determination. I made my mini determination based on the 1st minute or so and the words of the gents.
One may want to look into the person videotaping or hosting the video. The video only starts after the fact, and this person has a long history of anti-police crap. Unless I see what happened, it's nothing more than the word of a bunch of black guys on the street corner in Harlem and someone taping that has an agenda against police.
As i said don't ask me to defend all the points.
I mentioned the highlights of the content of the video, it answers one of your questions, as far as i know there is no other vids. We can make what ever assumptions we want and believe what we want. I've got nothing more to add, like i said i wasn't there and can't vouch for the police or the camera guy or the guys on the street.

Assume what you will. Make your best judgement. Or dismiss the whole thing.

[jimnyc]

As i said don't ask me to defend all the points.
I mentioned the highlights of the content of the video, it answers one of your questions, as far as i know there is no other vids. We can make what ever assumptions we want and believe what we want. I've got nothing more to add, like i said i wasn't there and can't vouch for the police or the camera guy or the guys on the street.

Assume what you will. Make your best judgement. Or dismiss the whole thing.

I just make judgments based on facts. Had the video showed the police showing up and ticketing for no reason, I would be saying the same thing as you are. For all I know though, these guys have been asked to stop loitering 50x and now decided to make a video and put it on the 'net. All we can rely on is what they say, which I think is a bit one sided likely, wouldn't you? Really ALL we can do is assume at this point, without all of the facts.

Wouldn't you prefer to see ALL of the facts and what got to that point before determining what really happened? I think it would be dishonest of anyone here to make a determination on a one sided video.

[taft2012]

Assume what you will. Make your best judgement. Or dismiss the whole thing. Dismissed.

[revelarts]

I just make judgments based on facts. Had the video showed the police showing up and ticketing for no reason, I would be saying the same thing as you are. For all I know though, these guys have been asked to stop loitering 50x and now decided to make a video and put it on the 'net. All we can rely on is what they say, which I think is a bit one sided likely, wouldn't you? Really ALL we can do is assume at this point, without all of the facts.

Wouldn't you prefer to see ALL of the facts and what got to that point before determining what really happened? I think it would be dishonest of anyone here to make a determination on a one sided video.

For all we know they could be telling the truth

the last part of the video shows the police driving by again and saying "welcome to the nieghborhood Jerk."
I guess we can assume that that's regulation police greeting in NY.
Or that there was past history that merited that response. Or the police came down from heaven in a basket.

but how about , assuming for a moment that what they said was basically true.
If , hypothetically it is all true.
it would indeed be racism and illegal wouldn't it?
just hypothetically speaking. It seems others here think there nothing wrong with the polices actions, even if they are telling the truth.

But IF, as you assume, there's some conspiracy to make the police look bad. That those guys are indeed regular criminals, that they are lying, that the camera guy has an anti-police agenda, that they spent all the time doing it for those dark purposes.
Sure that might be true too.
And IF that is the case then I apologize to the police in this case, for giving these guys the general benefit of the doubt.

But if not, then the police are... as described... committing unconstitutional, racist and illegal acts on a systematic basis. Which is what's been described ,not just by them but, by many others in NY. All of whom i suppose are criminals and liars including those police, judges, and city officials who confirm bad police behavior in general.

[aboutime]

Rev is guilty of nothing but...pulling the race card. It's a typical liberal trick they play whenever they are stumped, or confronted by facts known to be true....that cannot be changed to meet the Liberal definitions of their own made-up facts.

[logroller]

Dismissed.
That's usually what happens with manufactured misdemeanors. Oh well, maybe the next time you trample someone's civil rights it'll stick.

[red states rule]

This is really amazing. The crime rate in NYC has dropped like a rock over the last 15 years, and now the bleeding hearts want to make it easier for the criminals to commit crimes

[logroller]

Rev, YOU pulling the race card from the bottom of the deck? I never thought you would be so desperate to have to sink to that level
The nypd is using criminal profiling, those who commit crimes just happen to be African American.

"We are trying to save his life," Kelly said, when told of Walters' suspicion. "And we are trying to save the life of other young people who are disproportionately victimized on the streets of this city and other cities throughout America.


"We empathize with young people who may have been stopped and weren't doing anything illegal," he continued. "We ask them to understand that we are engaged in what we believe to be a life-saving process. And we hope they understand that."
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=19084229

To me this logic is inherently the same "liberal" justification you despise in many other aspects of policy, be it sodas, lunch menus, gasoline prices or environmental regulations. It seems the only difference upon whether you take issue is if you personally affected, then it's a liberal conspiracy; otherwise, it's just whining libs.

[red states rule]

The nypd is using criminal profiling, those who commit crimes just happen to be African American.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=19084229

To me this logic is inherently the same "liberal" justification you despise in many other aspects of policy, be it sodas, lunch menus, gasoline prices or environmental regulations. It seems the only difference upon whether you take issue is if you personally affected, then it's a liberal conspiracy; otherwise, it's just whining libs.

and as I just posted

Leve it to libs with the crime rate in NYC falling like a stone - to want to step in and "F" everything up

Bleeding hearts will stand back and make excuses over the bleeding bodies

[logroller]

and as I just posted

Leve it to libs with the crime rate in NYC falling like a stone - to want to step in and "F" everything up

Bleeding hearts will stand back and make excuses over the bleeding bodies

Safety and environmental regs save lives too. I've yet to see you defend those.

[red states rule]

Safety and environmental regs save lives too. I've yet to see you defend those.

Nice dodge LR

I have no doubt you are a lover of Obama's Regulation Nation even those that strip property rights away from the land owners (not to mention the thousands of pages of regs for Obamacare)

[logroller]

This is really amazing. The crime rate in NYC has dropped like a rock over the last 15 years, and now the bleeding hearts want to make it easier for the criminals to commit crimes
The crime rate has dropped across America and the majority of major metros; not all (and likely few) have near draconian gun laws and stop and frisk laws that target minorities. Is that what you're advocating?

[red states rule]

The crime rate has dropped across America and the majority of major metros; not all (and likely few) have near draconian gun laws and stop and frisk laws that target minorities. Is that what you're advocating?

"Draconian gun laws" increase crime by making law abiding citizens defenseless. The criminals know this

Has it ever occurred to you LR that perhaps the minorities are the ones committing the crimes, so the Police will logically "target" them?

It is the bleeding hearts like you that make TSA officials pull the 80 year old grandmother out of line and not the 25 year old Muslim male for a closer look before they board the airplane

[logroller]

Nice dodge LR

I have no doubt you are a lover of Obama's Regulation Nation even those that strip property rights away from the land owners (not to mention the thousands of pages of regs for Obamacare)
What did I dodge? I pointed out the similarity in the logic between your support of stop and frisk and the "liberal do-good-ers"...it's you that dodged it, stipulating that libs are undermining government solving a public threat.

[red states rule]

What did I dodge? I pointed out the similarity in the logic between your support of stop and frisk and the "liberal do-good-ers"...it's you that dodged it, stipulating that libs are undermining government solving a public threat.

You are following Obama's second term slogan

Hope and change the subject

[logroller]

"Draconian gun laws" increase crime by making law abiding citizens defenseless. The criminals know this
That doesn't explain New york's crime rates "dropping like a rock" now does it?


Has it ever occurred to you LR that perhaps the minorities are the ones committing the crimes, so the Police will logically "target" them?

Hmmmm

The nypd is using criminal profiling, those who commit crimes just happen to be African American. I should have added Hispanic, but you might try reading my posts before forming an response. Not just assuming that you know my position.

[logroller]

Cue the ad hominem attack:

You are following Obama's second term slogan

Hope and change the subject
...yet another dodge of my pointing out your hypocrisy.

[red states rule]

That doesn't explain New york's crime rates "dropping like a rock" now does it?


Hmmmm
I should have added Hispanic, but you might try reading my posts before forming an response. Not just assuming that you know my position.

NYC still has a gun crime problem LR



In a recent radio address (http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fht ml%2F2013a%2Fpr150-13.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1), Mayor Bloomberg pointed with pride to the city's relatively low rate of deaths by firearm, which according to a health department report (http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2013/firearms_report.pdf) is less than half the national rate. In the speech the mayor said his administration's work against gun violence has included "smart, pro-active policing that makes it much more likely that if you break our city's gun laws, you'll be caught," a reference to the controversial stop, question and frisk program that used 533,042 encounters to get 780 guns in 2012.

But while New York's gun homicide rate does compare favorably to most other big urban areas in the country (it ranks 19th among the 25 most populous cities)—which could reflect the impact of stop-and-frisk, or other law enforcement tactics, gun laws, social dynamics or other factors—the city's firearm homicide rate is identical to the overall national rate.

http://www.citylimits.org/blog/blog/274/gun-violence-in-nyc-the-killer-you-avoid-could-be-yourself#.UZDW4jbn-M8




I know yur position very well LR. Being a liberal you usually side with the liberal do gooder vision of America. The criminal is the victim and the Police are the enemy

And I do read your posts. They provide great comic relief before I head off to work and do my part to support to support your welfare sate

[logroller]

NYC still has a gun crime problem LR

So? Lots of cities have a gun crime problem; but its "dropping like a rock" in NYC, right? Well its dropping in El Paso too. What's the difference between El Paso and NYC? Its not Racial profiling?


I know yur position very well LR. Being a liberal you usually side with the liberal do gooder vision of America. The criminal is the victim and the Police are the enemy
I believe in America doing good, not bad. I see victimizing people as bad, be it at the hand of criminals or police.


And I do read your posts. They provide great comic relief before I head off to work and do my part to support to support your welfare sate
sure you do. That's why you just asked a question that, not only had I just answered, but you actually quoted....:rolleyes:
I don't find comic relief in your willful ignorance that only serves your own selfish ego. Thanks for your tax dollars, since you lack rational thought, it's all you contribute to America. :beer:

[red states rule]

So? Lots of cities have a gun crime problem; but its "dropping like a rock" in NYC, right? Well its dropping in El Paso too. What's the difference between El Paso and NYC? Its not Racial profiling?


I believe in America doing good, not bad. I see victimizing people as bad, be it at the hand of criminals or police.

sure you do. That's why you just asked a question that, not only had I just answered, but you actually quoted....:rolleyes:
I don't find comic relief in your willful ignorance that only serves your own selfish ego. Thanks for your tax dollars, since you lack rational thought, it's all you contribute to America. :beer:

Once again LR, you show your "tolerant" side when people offer a different opinion

I am surprised you take time out of your day to climb down from your Ivory Tower to associate with us. Perhaps you think you are doing us a favor by sharing your superior knowledge of a very select few topics

Perhaps Texas enforces it laws - especially the death penalty

[logroller]

Once again LR, you show your "tolerant" side when people offer a different opinion

I am surprised you take time out of your day to climb down from your Ivory Tower to associate with us. Perhaps you think you are doing us a favor by sharing your superior knowledge of a very select few topics

Perhaps Texas enforces it laws - especially the death penalty
Topics like what, debate?
Perhaps you should take note instead of devolving into near constant ad hominem attacks whenever your position is challenged.
El Paso is one of many cities in Texas. Not all had the same decrease; houston even increased.

[aboutime]

Once again LR, you show your "tolerant" side when people offer a different opinion

I am surprised you take time out of your day to climb down from your Ivory Tower to associate with us. Perhaps you think you are doing us a favor by sharing your superior knowledge of a very select few topics

Perhaps Texas enforces it laws - especially the death penalty


red states rule. Logroller can't help it. He flunked out of the Robert school of "I'm smarter than you".

[taft2012]

There not is not this huge monolith of "police" out stopping people willy nilly.

New York City is divided into 76 police precincts. Crime statistics are *EXHAUSTIVELY* analyzed. Who is committing the crimes is studied, along with the types of locations, times, days of the week, methods used, problematic areas of the precinct, age groups, statistics of the victims, etc.

Then, further within those statistical studies, the Department analyzes even deeper the statistics of public housing developments and the subway system. The NYPD has more than enough statistical data to support its actions. However, that does not become part of the discussion because it's rather inconvenient to argue against hard data and successful results. Instead, we're force-fed liberal talking points.

When they see a demographic being targeted for a crime, they initiate a public relations outreach effort to that group to prevent them from being victimized. In theory, that would be considered profiling as well, wouldn't it? Funny we don't hear the liberals and pothead conservatives whining about that.

Hypothetical scenario: Into downtown Flushing, where the population is approximately 99% asian, there is a robbery pattern of a group of young black men robbing residents as they come up to the street out of the subway station.

One evening, two police officers observe a group of young men black men hanging around by a subway exit, not doing much of anything, other than watching people come out of the subway station.

Question to liberals and pothead conservatives: What would you tell the police officers to do in this situation?

[revelarts]

....
Question to libertarians and constitutional conservatives:
What would you tell the police officers to do in this situation?

What's legal and proper according to the constitution.

[taft2012]

What's legal and proper according to the constitution.

That's a very weak cop out. The ugly truth is, the police had a lot more leeway for the first 125 to 150 of this nation, until you liberal activists worked through the courts to rewrite the Constitution to your likings.

How about giving us some specifics? You're the authority on Constitutional rewritings, tell us what the police should or should not do in this situation. (Other than, 'do what's Constitutional and don't do what's unconstitutional).

I know what the Supreme Court case law says the police can do.... I want to know what liberals and pothead conservatives think the police can do.

When the the rubber meets the road of reality, the liberals and pothead conservatives find themselves out of their element.

[revelarts]

That's a very weak cop out. The ugly truth is, the police had a lot more leeway for the first 125 to 150 of this nation, until you liberal activists worked through the courts to rewrite the Constitution to your likings.

How about giving us some specifics? You're the authority on Constitutional rewritings, tell us what the police should or should not do in this situation. (Other than, 'do what's Constitutional and don't do what's unconstitutional).

When the the rubber meets the road of reality, the liberals and pothead conservatives find themselves out of their element.

the constitution is never a cop out it's the supreme law of the land you swear an oath to it. and BTW the 1st 125 -150 years they used to lynch blacks and shoot Indians with little or no trial, want to go back to that? IF you want to keep name calling and mischaracterizing I can go there Taft.

The problem seems to be Jack booted 3rd Reich Stasi police structure and some police who think they have a 6th sense and know a criminal when they see one.

look the Police can watch people all they like in the open, but until a crime is committed or moves appear to be being made to that effect they have no reasonable suspicion to stop or search or ticket anyone Taft. There No law against police stopping and talking, but people are not obliged to answer. And don't need to show freaking papers to walk the streets.

I get the impression that you say they should be arrested on sight or told to leave.
God forbid any black people go to China town to eat, shop or visits friends. got any stats on that.

[taft2012]

the constitution is never a cop out it's the supreme law of the land you swear an oath to it. and BTW the 1st 125 -150 years they used to lynch blacks and shoot Indians with little or no trial, want to go back to that? you want to name calling and mischaracterizing I can go there Taft.

The problem seems to be Jack booted 3rd Reich Stasi police structure and some police who think they have a 6th sense and know a criminal when they see one.

look the Police can watch people all they like in the open, but until a crime is committed or moves appear to be being made to that effect they have no reasonable suspicion to stop or search or ticket anyone Taft.

I get the impression that you say they should be arrested or told to leave.
God forbid any black people go to China town to eat, shop or visits friends. got any stats on that.

Translation: "When presented with a real-life situation I am unable to convert my knee-jerk liberal gibberish into real-life action. I am merely a theoretician and not to be taken seriously on concrete matters."

[taft2012]

You know Rev, you really are amazing. You can pontificate ad nauseum about how the police are acting unconstitutional, all ex post facto.

I give you a scenario and ask you what you would tell the police to do, and you go into a shell.:laugh2:

[revelarts]

Translation: "When presented with a real-life situation I am unable to convert my knee-jerk liberal gibberish into real-life action. I am merely a theoretician and not to be taken seriously on concrete matters."

Concrete matters?
Hypothetical blacks guys, in an Asian area were hypothetical crimes have been committed, by hypothetical black criminals.
that's real concrete.

and it appear that you that can't translate
"Police can watch and talk but not arrest, ticket or harass " into your concept of -concrete Police work- .
Which Translation might be what:" when people who look suspicious to cops, the cops should put their faces in the concrete."?

[taft2012]

Concrete matters?
Hypothetical blacks guys, in an Asian area were hypothetical crimes have been committed, by hypothetical black criminals.
that's real concrete.

That's precisely what the police have to cope with every day. All over the city, in every precinct, there are varying crime patterns.

They have to have the answers and act accordingly. You get to sit back in your Lay-Z Boy recliner with a fat spliff in your mouth and Monday morning quarterback from your cannabis-induced paranoid state.



and it appear that you that can't translate
"Police can watch and talk but not arrest, ticket or harass " into your concept of -concrete Police work- .
Which Translation might be what:" when people who look suspicious to cops, the cops should put their faces in the concrete."?

So your answer is to have the police sit there and watch until some old Chinese lady coming out of the subway gets knocked on the head with a crescent wrench? I figured as much, just as your national defense policy is to wait until troops are massed all up against our borders and remain uninvolved until they attack us.

You wouldn't consider the police waiting and watching suspects who so very clearly are fitting the crime pattern to be negligent?

Furthermore, this is a big city with a lot going on. The police don't have time to sit for hours and wait for something that may or may not happen. If the police who spotted this crew get called to an emergency elsewhere in the precinct, and then this robbery crew strikes after the police leave, would you consider that good police work was done?

[taft2012]

Hypothetical scenario: Into downtown Flushing, where the population is approximately 99% asian, there is a robbery pattern of a group of young black men robbing residents as they come up to the street out of the subway station.

One evening, two police officers observe a group of young men black men hanging around by a subway exit, not doing much of anything, other than watching people come out of the subway station.

Question to liberals and pothead conservatives: What would you tell the police officers to do in this situation?

And here's the answer:

It is reasonable to suspect that this subway station may be the scene of a robbery that fits the pattern
It is reasonable to suspect that the people exiting the station may be victimized
The youths hanging around the subway station fit the description of the robbery gang operating around subway stations
It is reasonable to suspect the group is sizing up victims based on the way they are doing nothing other than watching people leave the subway station.
There is reasonable suspicion to believe they could be the robbery gang.

A stop, question, and frisk is justified and legal, based on the situation and the totality of circumstances, including robbery being a violent felony. That's not my basis, or the NYPD's. That's case law from previous court rulings, that include location, descriptions, time of day, nature of offenses, etc.

Reasonable suspicion does not mean they did the robberies, that they are guilty of anything, or that they are under arrest.

Then, as the SQF is underway, Rev's favorite cameraman swings by and films the police for harassing people for "only being black". :laugh2:

[Voted4Reagan]

Concrete matters?
Hypothetical blacks guys, in an Asian area were hypothetical crimes have been committed, by hypothetical black criminals.
that's real concrete.

and it appear that you that can't translate
"Police can watch and talk but not arrest, ticket or harass " into your concept of -concrete Police work- .
Which Translation might be what:" when people who look suspicious to cops, the cops should put their faces in the concrete."?

Rev, here in NYC all policing is conducted based on patterns of crime and incidents reported. I think you are having a problem understanding this...

As someone said earlier NYC is divided into 76 different pcts. for policing. Not all of these areas are high crime areas. Areas like Bayside, Breezy Point, Little neck, Douglaston and others are very LOW crime areas. In places like East New York, Brownsville, Harlem, Hunts Point and Washington Heights and Harlem are very HIGH CRIME areas.

If the statistics show that Drug crimes are spiking in an area like Harlem where residency is 99% African American, Who is going to be the most likely person looked at? Who is most likely to be responsible for these crimes? Is it the white guy that is in the area on business or will they look at the crowds of African American males standing in a group in the parks and on the street corners? If the area is almost entirely Minority then Minorities are going to be subject to the most scrutiny until the statistics decline. NYC Neighborhoods are NOT racially diverse. They almost never have been.

Jews have Williamsburg, Crown Heights and Boro Park, The Irish and Italians predominate in The Rockaways, Breezy Point, Belle Harbor and Woodlawn as well as Seagate, Asians have a section of Sunset Park and ChinaTown, The Russians have Manhattan and Brighton Beach as well as a big piece of Sheepshead Bay.

The list goes on and on.... We police by occurances here, not based on whats politically correct. Minority areas that are mostly Black/Hispanic are where the majority of the crime occurs and it is usually Minority on Minority crime.

You think it's done out of spite and profiling, but in a neighborhood that is almost 100% Black who is the suspect most likely to be?

think about it....

[taft2012]

So your answer is to have the police sit there and watch until some old Chinese lady coming out of the subway gets knocked on the head with a crescent wrench?

From Federalist #23 by James Madison



It is our vision to have law enforcement stand by helplessly while suspects in a time, place, and location so accurately fitting a violent robbery pattern may freely konk an old Chinese lady on the head with a crescent wrenche. Only then may the constabulary take action. These are the liberties we envision.

:laugh2:

[revelarts]

Taft V4R
neither one of your responses address my post.
you both talk about real crimes

Taft you set that senerio up to the edge of a crime, pass history, time of day, descriptions, actions, etc etc.

I posted a senerio where the guys appear to be doing nothing are in ther neighborhood across the street from there homes, have no record, and are ticketed for apparently No crime.
IT SEEMS YOU WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER THAT THE EVENT IS REAL. or even acknowledge it as a hypothetical.

You NEVER address that. you ASSUME that there is a reason.
and then tell me about hypothetical REAL crimes. who said they're aren't real crimes, no one.
who says that blacks never commit crimes, no one.

the issue here is WHy are innocent people blacks and Hispanics getting frisked, BS tickets and arrested for just walking the streets?

Just saying 'well a lot of Blacks commit crimes' is no excuse, Im sorry.
Not every instance of Black/Hispanic people on the street is reasonable suspicion.

Other police have admitted to the practice. You call them names and Liars.
I'm not sure why so many here feel that it's Unthinkable that it is happening.
Or Why some here feel that it's somehow justified, because they are Black and Hispanic.

To me it's really not much different than the IRS targeting conservatives for IRS issues.
Or the Homeland Security naming Christian groups as potential terrorist and inspecting Churches or frisking pastors. Or Militia as terrorist and ticketing for handing out miltia info.
Or potentially harassing the Gun owners as potential mass shooters. just to be safe.
Either the constitution is for everyone or not.
no one expects perfection but lets not make excuses to be lacks on rights for some groups, it almost always turns around to bite everyone in the arse.
Equal treatment under the law is all I'm talking about here. it's what many conservatives say they want. sometime i wonder.

[Voted4Reagan]

Taft V4R
neither one of your responses address my post.
you both talk about real crimes

Taft you set that senerio up to the edge of a crime, pass history, time of day, descriptions, actions, etc etc.

I posted a senerio where the guys appear to be doing nothing are in ther neighborhood across the street from there homes, have no record, and are ticketed for apparently No crime.
IT SEEMS YOU WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER THAT THE EVENT IS REAL. or even acknowledge it as a hypothetical.

You NEVER address that. you ASSUME that there is a reason.
and then tell me about hypothetical REAL crimes. who said they're aren't real crimes, no one.
who says that blacks never commit crimes, no one.

the issue here is WHy are innocent people blacks and Hispanics getting frisked, BS tickets and arrested for just walking the streets?

Just saying 'well a lot of Blacks commit crimes' is no excuse, Im sorry.
Not every instance of Black/Hispanic people on the street is reasonable suspicion.

Other police have admitted to the practice. You call them names and Liars.
I'm not sure why so many here feel that it's Unthinkable that it is happening.
Or Why some here feel that it's somehow justified, because they are Black and Hispanic.

To me it's really not much different than the IRS targeting conservatives for IRS issues.
Or the Homeland Security naming Christian groups as potential terrorist and inspecting Churches or frisking pastors. Or Militia as terrorist and ticketing for handing out miltia info.
Or potentially harassing the Gun owners as potential mass shooters. just to be safe.
Either the constitution is for everyone or not.
no one expects perfection but lets not make excuses to be lacks on rights for some groups, it almost always turns around to bite everyone in the arse.
Equal treatment under the law is all I'm talking about here. it's what many conservatives say they want. sometime i wonder.

Lets look at it like this... 2 neighborhoods only about 8 miles apart, which one should be monitored more closely?

BROWNSVILLE, BROOKLYN

The area is patrolled by the 73rd Precinct[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville,_Brooklyn#cite_note-2) located at 1470 East New York Avenue. New York City Housing Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Housing_Authority) (NYCHA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYCHA)) property in the area is patrolled by P.S.A. 2. It is part of Brooklyn Community Board 16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Community_Board_16). Brownsville is notable for having some of the highest rates of violent crime in New York City.

In 2010, Brownsville's population was 116,579 and the demographics were 80.3% Non-Hispanic Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people) or African American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American), 15.8% Hispanic/Latino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans), 1.2% Non-Hispanic White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people), 1.1% Asian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_American)/Pacific Islander and 1.6% described themselves as other.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville,_Brooklyn#cite_note-3) 29.9% of the population were High School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_School) graduates and 8.4% had a Bachelor's degree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor%27s_degree) or higher. As of 2008, the median household income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income) was $15,978. There were a total of 28,298 housing units in Brownsville.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville,_Brooklyn#cite_note-NYC_Planning_Dept-4)


BREEZY POINT, QUEENS

Breezy Point is a neighborhood in the New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City) borough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough_%28New_York_City%29) of Queens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens), located on the western end of the Rockaway peninsula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockaway,_Queens), between Rockaway Inlet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockaway_Inlet) and Jamaica Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica_Bay) on the landward side, and the Atlantic Ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Ocean). The neighborhood is governed by Queens Community Board 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens_Community_Board_14).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breezy_Point,_Queens#cite_note-1) The community is run by the Breezy Point Cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative), in which all residents pay the maintenance, security, and community-oriented costs involved with keeping the community private. The cooperative owns the entire 500-acre (2 km2) community; residents own their homes and hold shares in the cooperative.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breezy_Point,_Queens#cite_note-2) Breezy Point and the Rockaways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockaway_Peninsula) are less urbanized than most of the rest of New York City.

According to the United States Census Bureau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau), the community's ZIP code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIP_code) (11697) is 98.2% white and has the nation's 2nd highest concentration of Irish-Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish-American), at 60.3% as of the United States Census, 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census,_2000) (Squantum, in Quincy, Massachusetts, is #1, at 65%).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breezy_Point,_Queens#cite_note-2000Census-4) It functions mainly as a summer get-away for many residents of New York. Estimates put summer residency at 12,000, while year-round residency was 4337 in the most recent Census.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breezy_Point,_Queens#cite_note-2000Census-4)
Due to its history of Irish-American population, Breezy Point has been called the "Irish Riviera." Since the mid 90's, Italians and Jews have also moved into Breezy Point, making the concentration of Irish-American's drop. [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breezy_Point,_Queens#cite_note-Herszenhorn-5)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breezy_Point,_Queens#cite_note-Herszenhorn-5)
The changing economic fortunes of this area had varying effects on its crime rates. The 101st Precinct, with its high rises and housing projects in the eastern section of the peninsula and in Far Rockaway — one of the largest concentrations of public housing in the city — was hit hard by crime and drug use. In 1993, the area had nearly 2,850 incidents of major crime, including about 710 robberies, 800 burglaries and 460 car thefts, compared to 121 robberies, 136 burglaries and 78 car thefts, respectively, for the same categories in 2010.
The 100th Precinct, with the insular, gated community of Breezy Point on the western end and affluent Belle Harbor in the middle, had significantly less crime, even at the height of the crack epidemic.

************************************************** ************************************************

So Rev.... What neighborhood requires Policing, Stop and Frisk and other types of preemptive intervention?

Is it Breezy Point? Which is almost 100% White and has almost ZERO CRIME.

Or...

Is it Brownsville, Where the population is 100% Black/Latino and crime is off the Chart?

Pick one





(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breezy_Point,_Queens#cite_note-Herszenhorn-5)

[revelarts]

Lets look at it like this... 2 neighborhoods only about 8 miles apart, which one should be monitored more closely?
.....
************************************************** ************************************************
So Rev.... What neighborhood requires Policing, Stop and Frisk and other types of preemptive intervention?
Is it Breezy Point? Which is almost 100% White and has almost ZERO CRIME.
Or...Is it Brownsville, Where the population is 100% Black/Latino and crime is off the Chart?
Pick one
And again notice how i try to answer your scenarios but you guys rarely answer mine. Again you've just dismiss/ignore everything i posted and come back with extreme cases. where there are NEVER any innocent blacks or Latinos. why should i answer you when your not honestly responding to the scenarios and facts i post.

But ok, 1st of all why do guys you always pick the extreme cases?
Here's Charlie Manson and here's Mother Teressa which one needs blah blah
..c'mon. Not every neighborhood is that bad, and not all blacks and Latinios in NY are drop outs or poor. (and even if they were being a poor drop out is not a crime) Not all whites live in the Irish riviera. is that right?
But.. ok i'll play along. and give you the courtesy and honesty of a strait answer.

OK so Mostly rich and mostly poor is that what you said. .....
And no mainly you said mostly white and mostly black/latino ..but well never mind I'm sure race wouldn't make a difference.
But Obviously with the lack of education, the poverty and I'm sure fatherless children they have problems that are not going to be fixed by just "preemptive policing".

But you started with the questions which neighborhoods need monitoring?
the one with the high crime rate, needs more monitoring there is no doubt.
But then at the end you ask
'which one requires stop and frisk and other types of preemptive intervention?'
i say neither.

that's my point.
where heck did the police get the authority to preemptively stop crime? And cross the line on the Constitution to stop and frisk without reason. Living in a high crime area is not a reason. and reasonable suspicion.

I've made the distinction before, but somehow folks think i'm missing the point.
I know many folks here BELIEVE if crime or terror or the weather is bad we can or "are required" to toss the constitution in the Sh!T can.
Sorry but i do not.
The problem is not the constitution is to strict to catch criminals, we have the biggest prison population in the world and the biggest in human history. Following the constitution may help. Why not try following the oath for a change.

And BTW How many people work on wall st.? Anyone checking the crime stats in that neighborhood? robberies, embezzlements, frauds, prostitution of all kinds, blackmail, drug abuse. Any NYPD doing any preemptive policing there?

[jimnyc]

Here's Charlie Manson and here's Mother Teressa which one needs blah blah

I'm pretty confident no one did any such thing here. His comparison was EXTREMELY legit about neighborhoods a few miles apart, but with different crimes and different make up of citizens in their cities. No offense Rev, as I love you to death, but you have an uncanny way of stretching what other people say for effect, hoping the readers will believe what you say is what the other did in fact say, when they didn't. For example...

Rev seems to only like the police if HE is in an emergency life saving situation, otherwise its obvious he feels police have little to no value at all in a civilized society.

[taft2012]

Taft V4R
neither one of your responses address my post.
you both talk about real crimes

Taft you set that senerio up to the edge of a crime, pass history, time of day, descriptions, actions, etc etc.

I posted a senerio where the guys appear to be doing nothing are in ther neighborhood across the street from there homes, have no record, and are ticketed for apparently No crime.

And that's the entire point.

The police are acting under a set of facts that you're completely ignorant of. The guys I described sitting around outside the subway station could very well turn out NOT to be the guys in the robbery pattern, but instead be some guys heading to play a basketball game waiting for the last member of the team to come out of the subway.

When you are given a fact pattern that the police would normally have, you can see how it is reasonable to suspect they are on the "edge of a crime."

But when you don't have those facts, you would conclude the police just stopped these guys "because they're black."

[taft2012]

where heck did the police get the authority to preemptively stop crime?

From the same Supreme Court evidenciary rulings that decided 125 years after the Constitution was written that it was suddenly unreasonable and unconstitutional for police to search for evidence of a crime they suspected occurred. They make the rules. You're free to like some and dislike others, but they are the rules by which law enforcement operates.


And cross the line on the Constitution to stop and frisk without reason. Living in a high crime area is not a reason. and reasonable suspicion.

Enough with the strawman arguments. Nobody said it's Constitutional to frisk somone "without reason" or that living in a high crime amounts to reasonable suspicion.





And BTW How many people work on wall st.? Anyone checking the crime stats in that neighborhood? robberies, embezzlements, frauds, prostitution of all kinds, blackmail, drug abuse. Any NYPD doing any preemptive policing there?

Of course. You might want to Google that areas "Circle of Steel". It has the world's most sophisticated street camera security system.

[taft2012]

Other police have admitted to the practice. You call them names and Liars.


Then aren't you calling me a liar?

[jimnyc]

where heck did the police get the authority to preemptively stop crime?

Wow, didn't notice this until Taft replied.

This is the job of detectives and those involved in intelligence divisions. Part of their jobs are to perform investigations and prevent crimes. And yep, sometimes that is before people do a damned thing unlawful. Are you truly under the impression that police cannot, or should not, get involved in any crimes until the act is committed, that they cannot follow patterns, and cannot proactively follow leads in the hope of preventing criminal activity?

Suppose a cop sees a black man walking through a white neighborhood at 3am. You don't think he has the right, or the authority, to stop this person and investigate why he is there?

Suppose a white man is in a black neighborhood, known for drug activity. The white man has not been seen doing anything wrong at all. You don't believe the police have the right to ask that person why they may be there, and perhaps do a frisk if the answer doesn't jive? Hell, I've been in that EXACT circumstance myself, many years ago - and while I didn't like it - THEY WERE CORRECT in their actions.

[taft2012]

This is the job of detectives and those involved in intelligence divisions. Part of their jobs are to perform investigations and prevent crimes. And yep, sometimes that is before people do a damned thing unlawful. Are you truly under the impression that police cannot, or should not, get involved in any crimes until the act is committed, that they cannot follow patterns, and cannot proactively follow leads in the hope of preventing criminal activity?


Not to mention that all counter-terrorism efforts are also pro-active.

This is a reflection of Rev's belief that the USA should take no military action until attacked.