NYPD stop-and-frisk procedure ruled unconstitutional


#1

[Permalink]


#2

…the program, which has expanded directly under Mayor Bloomberg (4.43M
stops between 2008 and 2012)…

Wow, for real? That's more than one every 30 seconds!


#3

skin color is not reasonable suspicion

true unless you are caught red handed.


#4

White people, statistically more likely to be carrying weapons

Could you provide the source of these statistics?

P.S. seems like Facebook login is not working because Facebook app is in sandbox mode


#5

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/22/nypd-data-whites-much-more-likely-to-be-carrying-drugs-and-guns-than-minorities/ There is a link to the data in this article.


#6

RIght, so when does Bloomberg get arrested? When do federal marshals roll up on street cops and handcuff them in front of those they victimized?

Violating the Constitution should be something worthy of punishment.


#7

You don't seem to understand what "reasonable suspicion" means.


#8

I am not a Supreme Court justice obviously, but I don't understand how stop and frisk can be constitutional absent reasonable suspicion even if conducted in a racially-neutral manner.

Doing it in a racially-discriminatory manner is even worse of course, so this ruling is to be welcomed.

I'd also like to observe that it's too bad our laws and our courts don't recognize that things happen in class-discriminatory ways as well in our "classless" society.


#9

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of his usage of "red handed" in response to the message about skin color.

(ie. that's the joke)


#10

Took me a minute. I get it. And here I thought she was race-trolling.

Giving her a penitential heart.


#11

While I cannot say the finding isn't true, this statistic is still suspect due to sample bias. The sample are people stopped by NYPD. If, as the author notes, people of color are routinely stopped just for being young male and of color, than there may be additional reasons that the white people were stopped. Simply put, if a segment of the NYPD just stops people of color for no other reason, than the whites targeted would have been so targeted for an additional reason, you know, like appearing to have a weapon concealed under their shirt. Again, I can't point to this data and scream- "No, clearly black people carry more weapons," and I'm not even saying that's the case, but this data does not convince me that whites as a whole are carrying weapons and drugs more often than persons of color, only that the whites stopped by NYPD are carrying contraband more than the persons of color stopped by the NYPD. This is in fact logical (not right in the moral sense, but logical) given that the author is positing that minorities are stopped essentially at random. If you stop a large number of random persons from group A, and a smaller number of truly suspicious persons from group B, then you will hava higher percentage of positives in group B.


#12

I believe stop-and-frisk, itself, has not been judged unconstitutional. In fact, the Supreme Court has upheld S&F in the past. What has been determined unconstitutional in this case are the methods of determining who gets stopped. S&F can continue, so long as the methods of enacting it are more...egalitarian.

The key bit is this line...
The judge has called for a federal monitor to oversee reforms to the program.

Which implies that the S&F program itself remains, while operational changes will be made under the hood.


#13

Very logical, and statistically correct.

If groups A and B both carry guns equally, and I frisk people from group A more randomly (i.e. with less cause) than people from group B, I will find that more of the group B'ers will be carrying guns.

But what we can hypothesize from these data is that either white people carry more guns or the police are stopping black people with less cause, or both.


#14

Heh? So if you are caught red handed, then skin is a reasonable suspicion? You're not making sense...


#15

(It's a joke referring to the metaphorical color of the suspect's hands.)


#16

Ah. Seems like a bad joke then, considering that being caught red-handed doesn't actually mean a person's hand is red. Anyway, now I wonder how that expression ever got started.


#17

Mean

I assume it once referred to apprehending a crime suspect with the victim's blood still on their hands.


#18

I always assumed it was because fresh blood is red, and the metaphor just expanded to misdeeds beyond bloody murders (think Lady Macbeth washing her hands)

(edit: oop, crossed wires with Brainspore)


#19

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.