Some questions about stop and frisk -

[hedgehog]

There is a serious problem in Buffalo of young black men shooting other young black men. It happens in Syracuse, too. So my question is this; was this a significant problem in NYC before stop and frisk became policy? If so, is it still a problem?

Did stop and frisk turn up illegal weapons when it first went into effect?

Does stop and frisk turn up any illegal weapons now?

If stop and frisk prevents murders, is it justified?

If justified, should it be stepped down from the current frequency?

[Live and Learn]

1. Never justifiable IMHO nt

[Taitertots]

2. There is very very little reason to believe Terry Stops reduce crime

Recent drops in crime are trends that started before Terry Stops. Recent drops in crime were experienced in cities that still respect citizens basic human rights.

Terry stops (stop and frisk) are nothing but systemic human rights abuses. Blomberg and everyone involved (every police officer that ever did one) should be locked up.

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. Here's the New York Civil Liberties Union report on 2011 stop and frisk data.

They found guns in 1.9% of the stop and frisks. That's the ostensibly reason for stop and frisk.

http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/NYCLU_2011_Stop-and-Frisk_Report.pdf

DATA HIGHLIGHTS
The 685,724 stops in 2011 (an increase of 14 percent from 2010) were spread unevenly
amongst the city’s 76 precincts, with the 75th Precinct (East New York) leading the city
with 31,100 stops. Setting aside the Central Park Precinct (22nd), the 94th Precinct
(Greenpoint) had the fewest stops at 2,023.

In 70 out of 76 precincts, black and Latino New Yorkers accounted for more than 50
percent of stops, and in 33 precincts they accounted for more than 90 percent of stops. In
the 10 precincts with the lowest black and Latino populations (such as the 6th Precinct in
Greenwich Village), blacks and Latinos accounted for more than 70 percent of stops in
six of those precincts.

Young black and Latino men were the targets of a hugely disproportionate number of
stops. Though they account for only 4.7 percent of the city’s population, black and Latino
males between the ages of 14 and 24 accounted for 41.6 percent of stops in 2011. The
number of stops of young black men exceeded the entire city population of young black
men (168,126 as compared to 158,406). Ninety percent of young black and Latino men
stopped were innocent.

Though frisks are to be conducted only when an officer reasonably suspects the person
has a weapon that might endanger officer safety, 55.7 percent of those stopped were
frisked. Of those frisked, a weapon was found only 1.9 percent of the time.

Frisks varied enormously by precinct, with officers in the 46th Precinct in the Bronx
frisking people 80.4 percent of the time, as compared to a low of 27.5 percent in the 17th
Precinct on the East Side of Manhattan.

Black and Latino New Yorkers were more likely to be frisked than whites and, among
those frisked, were less likely to be found with a weapon.

In 2011 as compared to 2003 (the earliest year a gun recovery figure is available), the
NYPD conducted 524,873 more stops but recovered only 176 more guns. This amounts
to an additional recovery rate of three one-hundredths of one percent.

Of the 605,328 stops of innocent people in 2011, 53.6 percent were frisked. The 75th
Precinct led the city in stops of innocent people with 27,672 such stops. Excluding the
Central Park Precinct, the 94th Precinct had the fewest with

[hedgehog]

8. Thank you for that report - my takeaway is that what started as

a policy with some good results (guns off the streets) but lots of problems has ballooned into a policy that is causing a lot of pain with no better results. If the original results had been better analyzed, I think we would have a better policy that would be supported by the communities. (i.e behavioral profiling, not racial profiling) My reading is that in some neighborhoods ( not all) any young black man may be caught in the cross fire of someone else's argument, but that every young black man is likely to be stopped and subject to physical handling by a police officer. In addition, a policy that might arguably be tuned to cut down on gang violence has been misapplied to keep young men of color out of certain neighborhoods.

Ironically, I suspect that when white men are stopped and frisked, they are more likely to be carrying a gun because they know they are less likely to be frisked!

[JaneyVee]

4. Stop and frisk even sounds completely fascist.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. this is white mans burden justication of institutionalized racism

i would say a better method to see if this is effective is polling the black community whom its affecting the most and asking if they support this policy that disproportionately affects them.

[hedgehog]

9. It may be a policy that some support as long as it's someone else's

kid that gets stopped!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. i really doubt it, because eventually it will be their kid

or a good friends child or a nephew or a grandson or someone else that matters

[dsc]

6. yes it stops some crime and stops some illegal guns

I don't know the numbers and they are in dispute. But lots of things would stop some crime and stop some illegal guns. A 7 pm curfew would stop lots of crime, requiring people to be naked at all times and prohibiting any package that isn't see through would stop many illegal weapons. That doesn't make either of them good ideas. The racial way in which stop and frisk has been used has made its cost way too high.

[kudzu22]

7. Stop & frisk as carried out by NYPD is completely wrong

I don't care if it gets guns off the streets. I don't care if it ostensibly saves lives. Rights are rights and the Fourth Amendment is more important.

[hedgehog]

10. Thank you all for giving me new information to chew on;

and thank you especially for not jumping down my throat for asking!