The Effectiveness of Stop & Frisk

The mainstream media does a very good job of framing issues. The recent criticism of the NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy is a great example of this. We are told again and again by liberal pundits that Stop and Frisk isn't effective (basically the same criticism these pundits will use to criticize war and other atrocities like torture). In a recent article for the Guardian, John Liu frames Stop and Frisk as being ineffective:

The numbers don't lie: New York City police have conducted 5m "stop-and-frisk" searches since 2002. More than 86% of individuals targeted were black or Hispanic, and 88% were innocent of any crime. The stop-and-frisk tactic is clearly discriminatory, often humiliating, and totally ineffective. It must be abolished.

The numbers don't lie, but they certainly don't tell the whole story. To believe, as Liu clearly does, that Stop-and-Frisk is ineffective we'd have to believe that it's intent is to stop crime. We would have to believe that the NYPD are complete bufoons who don't know the basic facts that Liu sums up for us. We would have to assume, as liberals often do, that this is a wrong-headed policy carried out by an otherwise benevolent and good institution: the NYPD.

The real intent behind Stop and Frisk isn't hard to comprehend if you're a youth of color in New York City, but thankfully NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly actually spelled it out in a meeting with New York State Senator Eric Adams:

Kelly “stated that he targeted and focused on that group because he wanted to instill fear in them that every time they left their homes they could be targeted by police,” Adams said.

In other words the intent has never had anything to do with crime. Ray Kelly and the NYPD wanted to instill fear in communities of color and they've done that. Couple Stop and Frisk with the indiscriminate murders of kids like Kimani Gray and Ramarley Grahm and many more people of color and the NYPD has been very effective at terrorising the people of New York City.

Stop and Frisk needs to be abolished; not because it's ineffective, but precisely because it is effective. Bloomberg's Army has terrorized the people of New York City long enough.

 

Posted with Blogsy

NYPD Terrorists

 

Every once in a while we get a gem from our rulers; sometimes they actually have the audacity to state their motivations. NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly did just that when he informed New York State Senator Eric Adams that the Stop and Frisk program was aimed at instilling fear in young black and latino men. Senator Adams testified:

Kelly “stated that he targeted and focused on that group because he wanted to instill fear in them that every time they left their homes they could be targeted by police,” Adams said.

Of course, Ray Kelly is denying he ever said such a thing. In fact, city attorney Heidi Grossman claims that was Ray Kelly actually said was that officers should "instill belief" in young men of minority backgrounds. Surprisingly Grossman didn't elaborate on what that belief might be; perhaps the belief that if you are a person of color in New York City you can expect to be terrorized by the NYPD.

Is this really surprising? What other motivation could there be? Roughly 94% of the stops result in no charges. While the super majority of stops target youth of color, whites are twice as likely to be carrying a weapon. Nine out of ten stopped in 2011 were neither arrested nor given summonses. Statistic after statistic proves that this has nothing to do with crime or gun control and everything to do with terrorizing people of color.

 

Posted with Blogsy