NYPD Stops Drop As Officers Learn About This Fourth Amendment Thingie

The number of street stops by the NYPD, which has increased every year of the Bloomberg administration but one and hit a record 684,330 last year, fell by 25 percent in the second quarter of this year compared to the same period in 2011. The New York Times suggests the drop is largely the result of uncertainty about political support for the city's stop-and-frisk program, which involves detaining, questioning, and (about half the time) searching supposedly suspicious people, overwhelmingly black or Hispanic men. Citing unnamed police sources, the Times says sergeants conducting roll calls no longer push officers to make such stops, which have been widely criticized and are the target of a recently certified federal class action. The lawsuit argues that the NYPD routinely violates the Fourth Amendment because its stops and searches are not justified by reasonable suspicion and that the program is racially biased, violating the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. "Cops are nervous, and supervisors are nervous," one supervisor told the Times.

Commissioner Ray Kelly "acknowledged that the practice had come under scrutiny but said he did not believe that recent criticism by civil rights leaders played a role in the drop-off." Rather, he attributed the decrease to a redeployment of the rookie officers who historically have been responsible for a substantial share of street stops and to new training practices. But why are fewer officers being assigned to street stops, and why was additional training deemed necessary? The motivation for the redeployment may be debatable, but the reason for the training is clear. "Obviously, there is attention and scrutiny on it," Kelly said. "That's really why we engaged in the new training evolution." In other words, criticism of the stops is one of the reasons for the drop.

This "new training evolution" implicitly acknowledges there is merit to the lawsuit. Why suddenly start training officers how to do stops properly if they have been complying with the Constitution all along? Mayor Michael Bloomberg likewise does not help the city's defense when he cites general deterrence as the main justification for a program that is supposed to be based on individualized suspicion. The constitutional rationale for frisking someone during a stop is protecting officers from hidden weapons they reasonably suspect may be present. But cops almost never find guns during these stops, and Bloomberg says that shows the program is working, since the whole point of the searches is to deter people from carrying them. If so, the program is unconstitutional. Last month Bloomberg dismissed that concern as the quibbling of ivory-tower intellectuals. But he may be starting to recognize the legal implications of his policy argument. On Friday, the Times notes, his spokesman summarized the mayor's view this way: "We needed to mend, not end, the practice, and the reforms Commissioner Kelly has put into place ensure the focus is quality, not quantity." In other words, we have been violating the Fourth Amendment until now, but we will try not to do that in the future.

Kelly had a similar belated response to his officers' habit of flouting state law by charging people with "public display" of marijuana when the weed is brought into view only as a result of their actions—a practice that continued after he said it should stop.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SugarFree||

    Who is the independent third-party that has verified that stop'n'frisk is really down 25%--as opposed to the reporting of stop'n'frisk being down 25%?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Who would possibly know more about NYPD actions than the NYPD.

    Whose side are you on, anyway?!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Questions like that endanger police officers.

  • Killazontherun||

    Just change the name to NYOA - New York Occupation Army -- and be done with it. Constitutional rights don't apply on foreign soil, so I've been told.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well, for starters, it's impossible to stop and frisk some black kid in Brooklyn when you're busy running surveillance programs on Muslims in New Jersey. And secondly, since it's impossible to conceal a can of baby formula or a Double Big Gulp, they already have PC in most cases, making the searches perfectly legal and thus not categorized under the program.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    The officer smelled Mountain Dew.

  • aelhues||

    Are you denying that those who refuse to breastfeed their children, and those who drink excessive amounts of sugar and caffeine, aren't prone to criminal acts?!

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    What if you breastfeed your child while drinking excessive amounts of sugar and caffeine? Does one offset the other?

  • ||

  • Matrix||

    as some of the commenters have stated...

    Will we arrest women for smoking or drinking while pregnant? How about smoking in front of their babies? That is ridiculous to arrest her. Was there an actual law broken, or just tossed under the catch-all "child endangerment"?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    But cops almost never find guns during these stops, and Bloomberg says that shows the program is working, since the whole point of the searches is to deter people from carrying them.

    Obviously, this program is a rampaging success! Those murderous degenerates are leaving their gunz at home, so random warrantless searches of residences (in the parts of town where impoverished minorities are concentrated) should be next.

  • sarcasmic||

    In England there are government agents whose job is to visit peoples homes, look in their fridge, and advise them on how to use leftovers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....overs.html

    I wonder how long until Nanny Bloomburg follows suit.

  • BigT||

    Every male in NY is a suspect of not breastfeeding so NYPD has lots of latitude to stop n search.

  • R C Dean||

    Well, every male except Chuck Schumer.

  • o3||

    but i feels safer in brooklyns knowing the NYPD is shaking-down the browns n blacks. now if they'd just go after hipsters...

  • sloopyinca||

    Even hipsters have rights...until their mayonnaise causes a salmonella outbreak.

    Wait a minute...the thought of that has me running for my bunk.

  • John||

    I would love to see them profile hipsters. Hipsters couldn't say shit about it because every one of them claims to be unique and different and that there is no such thing as a hipster. Well, you are so unique, I guess you were not profiled. Up against the wall beardo.

  • o3||

    a ulysses grant beard is probable cause alone

  • John||

    or riding a bike with a six foot seat.

  • sarcasmic||

    Hipsters are more likely to have parents with the coin to defend themselves in court or initiate civil action than poor blacks and Hispanics.

    Like all bullies, cops avoid targets that can fight back.

  • John||

    But hipsters would have to admit they all do the same things or they couldn't claim to be profiled.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    But they could admit it ironically.

  • o3||

    Today’s hipster beating.
    Posted on August 4, 2012 by diehipster
    Today, I saw a birthday candle-armed, red bearded, artisanal oxygen connoisseur playing the washboard on Avenue U in real Brooklyn in hopes on teaching the non-attention seeking Italians, Russians, Chinese and Mexicans a little bit of culdesacian culture. So I shoved his fedora hat down his throat, dragged him by his unique Converse sneakers to Meats Supreme and ran his emaciated face through the deli slicer like a loaf of mortadella. End of story.
    http://diehipster.wordpress.com/

  • Killazontherun||

    Artisanal oxygen? I've got to get in on that scam.

  • sloopyinca||

    Semi-serious question: is it legal to perform a citizen's arrest for a federal crime? Why couldn't someone make a point of arresting an officer who does one of these illegal stops? At least that would get it to court where it can be settled once and for all.

    Hell, it could be done for "False Imprisonment/Kidnaping" and go to state court as well, but I'd prefer that it go to federal court.

  • R C Dean||

    Why couldn't someone make a point of arresting an officer who does one of these illegal stops?

    Because he has a gun, and you don't.

    Typically citizen's arrests go like this: You see a perp in the act. You manage to "convince" him not to leave while you call 911 and a "real" cop arrives, who then takes over and makes a "real" arrest.

    The opportunities for farce in trying to citizen's arrest a cop are significant. Let us know how that goes.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I don't know if it is legal to perform a citizen's arrest for a federal crime. But I do know that if you tried to perform a citizen's arrest on a cop, you'll probably end up in jail, or dead.

  • sarcasmic||

    Another "suicide by cop". A service most officers are more than happy to give, especially since they get a nice paid vacation without having to waste any of their leave time.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    is it legal to perform a citizen's arrest for a federal crime? Why couldn't someone make a point of arresting an officer who does one of these illegal stops?

    Are you fucking nuts? Everybody knows a police officer is the absolute ruler of the space he inhabits. Any refusal or hesitation once a command is given is punishable by summary execution.

  • Espantapajaros||

    "In other words, criticism of the stops is one of the reasons for the drop."

    Maybe, maybe not. "Criticism" is the term for commentary from outsiders like us. "Attention and scrutiny" is probably the term for commentary from Kelly's superiors.

  • ||

    good. NYPD needs to stop disregarding the constitution

    as to the racial disparity, reason again fails to provide stats as to how the disparity of the stop racial breakdown correlates with the vastly disparate rates of crime OFFENDERS as broken down by race, and as extensively documented by crime VICTIMS in the NCVS (and which i have cited at least 1/2 dozen times)

    next, we will have groundbreaking reporting on how NYPD arrests men vs. women by a ratio of over 8 to 1 for robbery!!!!!! omg, disparate statistics MUST MEAN SEXISM

    again, NYPD *may* be engaging in racist stops but without correlating disparate stop data with disparate offender data, it's just a bunch of whining without statistical backing

    but again, good to hear the NYPD *may* be starting to respect that pesky 4th amendment

    terry stops are fine. i've made well over 1,000. but they must be based on reasonable suspicion.

    our constitution, and respect for human dignity and freedom demands it

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Dunphy declaring what is and is not constitutional is like John declaring who is and isn't a libertarian.

  • ||

    wow. a personal attack instead of a comment that actually discusses issues.

    again, the lowest form of discourse and the bigots out themselves again

    be an adult and discuss constitutional concepts and NYPD's flagrant dismissal of constitutional protections?

    nope. personal attack. no matter what, make the personal attack agains teh evul cop because it makes the ignorant bigot FEEL better about himself

    pretty sad.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Settle down, Dunphy. CN was just making a joke. And you weren't even the punchline, it was about John.

  • ||

    hey, it wouldn't be the first time i was tone deaf and defensive. comes with the territory here.

  • Pip||

    "it wouldn't be the first time i was tone deaf and defensive."

    That's why you're a cop.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    He's still the punchline.

  • sloopyinca||

    More of a one-line joke. With him, there's no setup needed.

    He's kinda like our own Andy Dick.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's funny, coming from the King of Personal Attacks, Mr "you're just butthurt" Dunphy himself!

  • Randian||

    next, we will have groundbreaking reporting on how NYPD arrests men vs. women by a ratio of over 8 to 1 for robbery!!!!!! omg, disparate statistics MUST MEAN SEXISM

    Asked and answered, dunphy. Last time, reason showed that 80% of stop-and-frisks were performed on blacks and Hispanics. You failed to demonstrate that a commensurate level of crimes warranted that kind of attention.

    In other words, you cannot ask reason to prove a negative. The 80% rate is ipso facto discrimination. The burden is on you to demonstrate that it's reasonable and explainable discrimination.

  • sarcasmic||

    well you're just a butthurt anti-cop bigot who's only source of information is Reason, which means you don't see the HUNDREDS of times every DAY where police are held to a much higher standard than everyone else you anti-cop bigoted bigot!

    (did i do good? did i?)

  • Randian||

    Overall not bad, but NEEDZ MOAR Morgan Fairchild and itfpapic.

  • Pip||

    "itfpapic"

    What does this mean?

  • Randian||

    According to dunphy, it's "if the fact pattern as presented is correct".

    He's like an eight year old who makes up acronyms. It's pretty amusing, actually.

  • Pip||

    Thank you.

  • ||

    no, as usual, you devolve to personal attacks.

    NCVS data is available online. those making the claim have the burden to support with evidence

    even jesse jackson admits there is disparate offender rates. for example, men commit far more part I crimes than women

    disparate stop data means nothing without correlating with NCVS data

    i am making no claim

    i am pointing out the fact that they are not supporting THEIR claim

  • sarcasmic||

    I wasn't attacking you. I was mocking you.

  • Randian||

    To repeat myself, just because offender rates are disparate does not mean that they support the 84% number.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Additionally, crimes are committed by individuals, not races.

  • Randian||

    Just so everyone has the numbers and so dunphy can't wriggle off with the "just asking questions" meme:

    A whopping 84% of the stop-and-frisks last year were on Blacks or Latinos, with 51% of that number performed on blacks.

    Contraband was only found in 2% of stops. If a 2% success rate is "reasonable suspicion", then that term is meaningless on its face.

  • ||

    again, i am making no claim and again you provide no correlate with NCVS data

    the issue is what is the disparate rate of offenders (consider Part I crime for instance) and do the stops correlate to same?

    you can dance around that issue all you want, but that is THE issue

    different demographics commit part I/part II crimes at different rates

    per crime VICTIMS

  • Randian||

    the issue is what is the disparate rate of offenders (consider Part I crime for instance) and do the stops correlate to same?

    They don't and you know they don't. 84%? No way, dunphy.

  • sloopyinca||

    the issue is what is the disparate rate of offenders (consider Part I crime for instance) and do the stops correlate to same?

    you can dance around that issue all you want, but that is THE issue

    Actually, the crimes here are committed 100% by policemen. There is no other "issue".

    For fuck sake, people. Why are you letting this idiot control the narrative? All of these stops are illegal if they do not have reasonable suspicion that the individual they are stopping has committed a crime. Stats and other bullshit are irrelevant when it comes to individual rights, and the 4A is an individual right.

    I couldn't give a fuck if 99% of crimes were committed by a group that made up 5% of the population. It still wouldn't give cops cause to stop those people at will and illegally search them.

  • Randian||

    Unfortunately, the components of reasonable suspicion can be offender rates and the area's history.

  • sloopyinca||

    I've heard this claim, but I've never seen anyone cite where the Supreme Court said the 4A isn't a guarantee against statistics. Linky?

  • Randian||

    I am telling you the reality, not the black-letter text of the law.

  • ||

    no, i am not making a claim. the burden is on those making a positive claim to provide evidence

    the NCVS stats are out there. they show a vastly disparate offender rate based on ethnicity

    reason has to my knowledge, NEVER cited same, referenced same, etc.

    they are making the claim the NYPD is racist

    i am making NO claim

    i am asking the person making the claim to support their claim with evidence

    disparate stop rates mean NOTHING without correlating with offender data.

    again, the fact that NYPD arrests men 8 times more often for armed robbery than women is not proof of sexism

    the fact that NYPD disparately stops (certain) minorities disparately is not proof either

    the ncvs establishes disparate offender rates

    so, again, i am the first to concede the NYPD may be engaging in stops based on racial considerations

    but reason has the burden to establish same

    again, a fundamental concept in discourse.

    you make a positive claim, you provide supporting evidence

    the NCVS is available online. i've linked to it more than once. feel free to google it and research

    or wallow in ignorance.

  • Randian||

    They did provide a claim, to wit: "An 84% stop rate is evidence of racism"

    You have failed to provide a counterclaim. All you have said is that this *may* not indicate racism because of the disproportionate offender rates. However, I strongly suspect that if 84% of crimes in NCVS were committed by blacks and Latinos, you would have looked it up by now and thrown into our faces, and you have no done so.

  • ||

    no, they must correlate with NCVS data

    that is no more evidence of racism than the claim that cops arrest men for robbery more than 8 times as often as women

    (hint: per NCVS, men COMMIT armed robbery over 8 times as often)

    i have no idea if the 84% rate is disparate VIS A VIS offender rates but reason doesn't support that.

  • Randian||

    You correlate it with NCVS data and prove them wrong. If 99% of the stops were on blacks only, would that still not be evidence of racism?

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sure he'd find a way to defend the actions of the police, or spin it into a personal attack such as "you're nothing but a butthurt anti-cop bigot".

  • Pip||

    "the NCVS stats are out there. they show a vastly disparate offender rate based on ethnicity"

    QUOTE A FUCKING NUMBER AND LINK TO IT YOU FUCKING USELESS CUNT.

    IF NOT, STFU.

  • Adam330||

    "the burden is on those making a positive claim to provide evidence"

    According to Harry Reid, you're wrong.

  • Calidissident||

    Your explanation may make sense if we were talking about arrests and convictions. But were not. We're talking about stop and frisks the vast majority of which are not warranted. The fact that they are overwhelmingly done towards blacks and latinos indicates racial profiling. Also, drug use varies little between different races.

  • sloopyinca||

    As to dunphy's point above: I don't give two shits if it's racially motivated. I don't care what the crime stats are vs the stop/frisk stats. Illegal is illegal, period. The fact that these stops are unconstitutional every fucking time is what matters, not whether or not they are performed disparately on blacks, hispanics, men or any other statistical group.

    It's why libertarians despise "hate crime" legislation. A victim is a victim, regardless of the motivation.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    ^^^This^^^

    The racism/nonracism part is a red herring.

  • Randian||

    These kinds of stops probably aren't illegal, though. They are only illegal if the program has a disparate impact on minority groups. That's the key part.

  • sloopyinca||

    I don't think that's accurate. The 4A isn't suspended because of (potential) guilt by association.

    I need a link where the SC ruled the 4A rights of minorities may be suspended because others in their identity group committed crimes at a higher rate than another identity group.

  • T||

    This. The Terry justification is a fig leaf if you're only getting hits in 2% of cases.

  • Randian||

    Anybody notice how when confronted with numbers and facts, dunphy suddenly becomes absent...every time?

  • sarcasmic||

    Yup.

  • ||

    nope. i provided cites. scroll down...

    Here are the crime data that the Times doesn’t want its readers to know: blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city’s population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown. Any given violent crime is 13 times more likely to be committed by a black than by a white perpetrator—a fact that would have been useful to include in the Times’s lead, which stated that “Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped.” These crime data are not some artifact that the police devise out of their skewed racial mindset. They are what the victims of those crimes—the vast majority of whom are minority themselves—report to the police.

    http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0514hm.html

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Speaking truth to power again, hey Fosdick?

    "Terry stops are totally okay, because that's what we call what I do. I'm a libertarian, you know."

    One man's "reasonable suspicion" is another man's, BECAUSE FUCK YOU, THAT'S WHY.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    the NCVS stats are out there. they show a vastly disparate offender rate based on ethnicity

    Here's a thought; if 85% of the people you search are black, maybe that would skew the "crime rate"numbers.

    Fucking cause and effect- how does it work?

  • ||

    dipshit

    the crime OFFENDER rates are reported by crime VICTIMS in the NCVS

    it has NOTHING to do with cops

    again, crime VICTIMS report the offender disparate rates. VICTIMs (who are disproportionately minorities)

    god, the ignorance it burns

  • ||

    here's what heather macdonald, who CITES the NCVS says: Here are the crime data that the Times doesn’t want its readers to know: blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city’s population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown. Any given violent crime is 13 times more likely to be committed by a black than by a white perpetrator—a fact that would have been useful to include in the Times’s lead, which stated that “Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped.” These crime data are not some artifact that the police devise out of their skewed racial mindset. They are what the victims of those crimes—the vast majority of whom are minority themselves—report to the police.

    read the article:

    http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0514hm.html

  • sarcasmic||

    We're not talking about violent crime.

    We're talking about stopping people on the street and searching them for contraband.

    Not. The. Same. Thing.

  • ||

    no, i am saying that terry stops are done based on suspicion of criminal activity.

    if a group is disparately likely to commit CRIME, they are disparately likely to be stopped for REASONABLE SUSPICION of crime

    again, you can ignore this all you want, but it's the statistical reality

    terry stops are made based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

  • sloopyinca||

    Let me see if I've got this straight:

    Blacks commit 66% of all reported (not necessarily convicted) violent crimes. Blacks are stopped for 55% of the stops in an otherwise unconstitutional program. Because they are stopped at a lower % than the rate of crimes it is "reported" that they committed, the stops pass muster, re: reasonable suspicion, to you?

    What the fuck? That's just identity politics, pure and simple.

  • ||

    i didn't say they passed muster vis a vis reasonable suspicion

    instead i said several times, the NYPD is blatantly violating the constitutioon vis a vis reasonable suspicion

    you can't fucking read

    i have repeatedly condemned the NYPD for violating the 4th

    scroll up. i did it today

    what i am saying is that the crime offender data does not support that they are engaging in racism in making these stops

    if the stops correlate with disparate offender data, that's clear

    and they do

    or feel free to refute heather macdonald's data. the NCVS and BJS are online

    feel free to show where her data is wrong

    i'll stand by

  • sloopyinca||

    or feel free to refute heather macdonald's data. the NCVS and BJS are online

    feel free to show where her data is wrong

    Um, OK. They're statistics of "reported" crimes, not convictions. Here's a "reported" crime stat: in 2006 on the campus of Duke University, the majority of reported rapists played lacrosse and were white.

    See where I'm going with this? Without convictions, the stats are just made up bullshit, therefore are invalid as an argument against racism.

    Question: what % of reported crimes turned out to be inaccurate? What % of those claims were made against blacks? Hispanics? Men?

    The crime reporting stats are irrelevant in the case. Why you keep bringing them into the argument is a mystery to me, and to many others here.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why you keep bringing them into the argument is a mystery to me

    Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

    Pick and choose between different statistics and you'll eventually find one that supports your argument.

    I highly doubt that the rates of the crimes that people are charged with after beings stopped and searched vary that much by race (drugs, marijuana mostly), which is why violent crime stats were used for the comparison.

  • ||

    they are statistics based on crime victims

    are crime victims, who are DISPROPORTIONATELY minorities fabricating the race/gender of those who attacked them?

    jesus christ, your desperate clutching at straws is fucking sad

    perfect example of when the data conflicts with your prejudices, you shut down and start sputtering.

  • Randian||

    you cited violent crime rates for stops that mostly yield evidence of non-violent crimes.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not quite.

    You see, blacks and browns committing more violent crime is reason to suspect them of committing non-violent crime.

    Because after all, violent crime and non-violent crime are the same thing.

  • ||

    nice try. again, you can't refute the data

    terry stop data , given NON racist cops does and should correlate with offender rates

    you have provided ZERO data to refute the data provided by macdonald

    nobody claims cops are sexist because they disparately terry stop men, for instance

    (hint: men commit far more part I and substantialy more part II crime)

    terry stop rates should (and according to macdonald's data) *DO* correlate with offender rates

    iow, the cops are disproportionately stopping people at a rate that correlates with likelihood to be crime offenders

    hth

  • sarcasmic||

    What do stats by crime victims have to do with fishing for victimless crimes?

  • Whahappan?||

    Actually, terry stops are not made based on reasonable suspicion. They're made on the basis of "Fuck you, that's why."

  • Randian||

    No kidding.

    Not only that, but it's clear Heather McDonald is picking and choosing her statistics. What is the percentage of all crime blacks commit? Why did she choose just the first half of 2009 as her baseline?

  • ||

    2009 was the LATEST NCVS survey available when she wrote the article in 2010

    jesus christ. when you have no argument, it's just sad the reaching and clutching

    so was 2009 a statistical anomaly?

    if so, go to the NCVS data and PROVE it

    use DATA

  • Randian||

    It isn't reaching. This was written well into May 2010. You are trying to say that 2009 was not available yet?

    Anyway, these are reports, not convictions.

    Again, what was the percentage of all crimes committed?

  • Pip||

    I'm reminded of the woman in Boston who killed her kids and blamed a black guy.

  • sloopyinca||

    Why anyone would take dunphy seriously is beyond me. Ever since I called him out on that story where the cop got a sentence "4 times as long as a non-cop would have" when that psycho threw his ex- out a second-story window and got a few more years than a non-cop might have (but within the sentencing guidelines), I've had absolutely zero respect for him.

    Protip: when dunphy makes a claim, ask him to provide links. And then go into those links and dig into the story. Every time I've done so, his claims have turned out to be rather disingenuous (see above), or he refuses to/cannot provide links.

  • ||

    rubbish. i provided a cite where a cop got a stiffer sentence than ANYBODY else, and where the judge STATED he thought cops deserved harsher treatment

    i asked for ONE cite of ONE defendant in WA state with a non felony record who got as long or longer a sentence for assault

    you never provided one

    because, as far as i can find there ARE NONE

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, well you maintained that he had no priors and that he got a sentence "four times as long" as a non-cop would have. Only...he had a slew of priors that led to his initial arrest in that case, and he pled guilty to all of them when the case in question went to trial. And as far as the sentencing goes: even his attorney thought he would get 15-18 years, which was the minimum for anyone in the case. He got 4 years more than anyone else would have been required by the minimum sentencing guidelines to have gotten. But you kept up that bullshit song and dance about "4 to 5 times as long as a non-cop" even in when your lie was exposed...and in the face of a wall of cases where cops were given preferential treatment for their crimes.

    By the way, how do you feel now about Officer Pike getting thrown on the dung-heap of bad cops? Are you still ready to defend his illegal acts?

  • sarcasmic||

    Funny how when it is pointed out that uniformed cops rarely if ever face consequences for acts that would land anyone else in prison for a very long time, you point out a single instance of what a cop got convicted for while off duty.

    Not. The. Same. Thing.

  • ||

    it is not "pointed out".

    it is claimed and is contrary to evidence

    it's an unsupported assertion.

  • sarcasmic||

    Haaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha!

    You funny!

  • ||

    typical contentless post.

    you make unsupported assertions that usually consist of shit like "if somebody who wasn't a cop did this, THEY would get arrested" based on nothing but assertion

  • sarcasmic||

    So every use of force is justified?

    Every single one?

    With no exceptions?

    Every single time a cop beats someone so badly that they require hospitalization it is justified?

    Every single time?

    Every time a cop kills someone it is justified?

    Every single time?

    Because, with maybe one or two exceptions per decade, I NEVER hear about cops being prosecuted for assault, battery, or murder for what they do while on duty.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Quoting an authoritarian cunt like Heather McDonald to "buttress" your argument? Seriously?

    Break out the Anslinger.

  • ||

    wow. lol

    perfect. again, you can't refute the DATA, so you attack the source.

    she cites crime victimization data. and you can feel free to read the NCVS all you want. it says the same thing. vastly disparate offender rates

    show me evidence that her stats are bogus.

  • sarcasmic||

    Who cares if her stats are bogus when they are irrelevant?

  • ||

    reason logic. heather mcdonald is an 'authoritarian cunt' so therefore there is no burden on a reasonoid, presented with data that conflicts with their bigotry to DEBUNK her data. she cites data. the NCVS and BJS data is on the web

    if her data is wrong, then show me where it is.

    reason has never provided data to debunk her data.

    have you?

  • ||

    note: nobody has refuted macdonald's data

    not one person. she shows that the stop rate is correlated with the disparate offender data

    neither reason.com authors or anybody else i am aware of has shown her DATA is wrong

    i'll stand by

    (hint: NCVS and BJS are online).

    again, nobody has refuted her data

    nobody

  • sloopyinca||

    note: nobody has refuted macdonald's data

    Why would we need to refute "reported" crimes? Convictions are what matters, not who "victims" say committed the crimes.

    What % of the reported crimes result in a conviction? Unless it is approaching 95-100%, I'd say the criminal offender stats are questionable at best.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not only that but she uses apples to prove something about oranges.

    What to reported violent crimes have to do with stopping people, frisking them, and charging them for drug possession?

    Nothing.

  • ||

    no, convictions are not what matters.

    reports by victims are much more robust data.

    again, refute her data. you can't . utterly unshocking.

    especially in a culture of "stop snitching" etc. you rely on victimization data, not convictions.

    are you claiming crime victims are LYING?

    because either

    1) they are lying
    2) heather mcdonald is lying

    neither of which you can support

  • ||

    hint: conviction data is always suspect becauseclaims are and can be made that the criminal justice system disparately treats offenders based on class and arguably race

    victimization data does not fall prey to such structural inequities

    again, are crime victims LYING?

    sloopy pathetically clutches at straws to support his bigotry

  • sarcasmic||

    What do stats about crimes with victims have to do with stopping people and looking for drugs?

  • sloopyinca||

    hint: conviction data is always suspect becauseclaims are and can be made that the criminal justice system disparately treats offenders based on class and arguably race

    Yeah, an impartial jury is sooooo much more likely to wrongly convict someone than a victim is to wrongly implicate somebody they may have seen for a few seconds, not seen at all or had a reason to wrongly implicate for personal reasons.

  • T||

    Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. So if some guy gets mugged at 2a and says without a doubt his attackers were of any particular ethnicity, I'm inclined to doubt him, and by extension, the stats in general. But that's just me.

    BTW, self-reporting of anything is suspect, not just crime. The NCVS stats may be the best ones we have, so we use them in discussion. But don't make the mistake, which you're doing here, of assuming the data is accurate and maps the phenomenon.

    My issue is that the stops are presumptively bullshit because only 2% turn up hits. This means, to me, the cops are using boilerplate language to justify searching anybody they want.

  • sloopyinca||

    reports by victims are much more robust data.

    They may very well be more "robust," but they are also much more likely to be incorrect.

    again, refute her data. you can't . utterly unshocking.

    But her data has not been substantiated in a courtroom, which is where we determine justice in this country, not by trotting out stats that could very well be made up.

    are you claiming crime victims are LYING?

    In some cases, I'm sure they are. In others, they may have made a mistake. And in others still, they are correct. My point still stands: use conviction rates if you want a true measure of the perpetrators of crimes.

    Christ, dunphy. Why do you hate the justice system? I know it's **snicker** unfairly harsh on cops, but I don't think the stats that come from there vis-a-vis crime statistics should be replaced by the words of "victims" that may not necessarily be as impartial as a jury.

  • ||

    hmmm...

    i'll make a prediction

    nobody will be able to prove macdonald's data is incorrect. she cites victim survey, etc. data.

    reason.com has never refuted these stats, nor have people commenting here.

    given a disparate offender rate, cops will and should have disparate terry stop rates if they are NOT racist (and sexist)

    people have attacked HER, nobody has attacked her data, and if her data is bogus, then where are the cites that this is so. this article came out in 2010 and i have yet to see ONE article that refutes her data.

    NCVS and BJS are online.

    feel free

  • sloopyinca||

    nobody will be able to prove macdonald's data is incorrect. she cites victim survey, etc. data.

    Again, why would we have to prove them incorrect? The burden of proof is on her to substantiate her "data" with the corresponding convictions for those crimes.

    Until those accused are convicted, the reported stats mean jack shit to me, or to any reasonable person.

  • sarcasmic||

    Her data is irrelevant.

    The data is about reported violent crime, while the searches are to find unreported victimless crimes.

    One of these things is not like the other...

  • Pip||

    The United States is the only country to drop atomic bombs on people.
    Therefore, the overwhelming majority of bombs are dropped by the United States and the UN should place monitors in the united States.

    /dunphy logic

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Why don't we just round up all the niggers and put them in camps?

    Problem solved!

  • ||

    histrionics and bigotry in response to data

    how typical.

    heather macdonald provides cites. you provide bigotry.

    par for the course.

    (hint: that's a sign that you are sputtering and your cognitive dissonance drive is overloaded)

    sorry, if reality smacked you in the kisser.

    data refutation: none provided

    bigotry: you provide plenty

  • sloopyinca||

    histrionics and bigotry in response to data

    You keep calling her information "data," as if it is irrefutable even though she has not given the corresponding convictions to each case of reported crime and made available how accurate or inaccurate the victims' claims were.

  • ||

    the issue is not convictions. it's reports by crime victims. the VAST majority of crimes don't result in convictions, and a substantial majority do not even result in arrest

    thus, victimization data is FAR more robust.

    and even fucking jesse jackson admits the offender data is vastly disparate

    again, refute her data.

    oh that,s right, you can't

    are the crime victims LYING

    (remember, they are disproportionately minorities. are they lying about the race of the people who victimized them?)

    jesus, your clutching is getting sad.

    refute her data.

    oh yea, you can't

  • sarcasmic||

    the VAST majority of crimes don't result in convictions, and a substantial majority do not even result in arrest

    Don't you mean that the vast majority of crimes with actual victims go unpunished?

    Even so, what does that have to do with stopping people and looking for drugs?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Here's a question for you.

    You cite Violent Crime statistics as a reason to conduct random warrantless searches which achieve a vanishingly small rate of arrests for VICTIMLESS crimes. Are you or are you not suggesting black people are inherently prone to criminality?

  • ||

    no, i don't . you lie

    scroll up

    my first post here (and many others) says that NYPD is blatantly violating the 4th amendment and they should sto

    i will repeat this again for the hearing impaired

    1) the NYPD imo based on cited evidence has been blatantly violating the 4th amendment and their stop and frisk program is an unconstitutional abomination

    2) there is no evidence, and substantial evidence to the contrary that they are doing it in a RACIST manner.

    i have posted NUMEROUS times that it;s fucking disgusting that they are ignoring the 4th amendment, and i have come out NUMEROUS times AGAINst the stop and frisk program

    jesus fucking christ

  • sarcasmic||

    i will repeat this again for the hearing impaired

    I didn't realize that you read out loud.

    Though with your grammar skills and chosen occupation I don't find it to be a surprise.

    But it must be embarrassing.

  • ||

    note: the heather mcdonald article also has a very nice graph (thus not directly citable here) that illustrates the vast disparity in offender data AS REPORTED BY CRIME VICTIMS (note: crime victims are disproportionately minorities. they are overwhelmingly more likely to victims of part I crimes especially. young black males are several times more likely to be homicide victims in NYC. ).

    are crime VICTIMS in new york, who disproportionately ARE minorities FABRICATING and lying about the race and gender of those who victimize them?

    and again, # of reasonoids who have refuted macdonald's data: ZERO

  • sarcasmic||

    What do stats on reported violent crimes have to do with stopping people under suspicion of non-violent crimes?

  • ||

    terry stops are based on suspicion of a wide variety of crimes

    again, refute the data

    oh yea, you can't

  • sarcasmic||

    Data is irrelevant if the stops are to catch people with marijuana in their pocket, not people who committed violent crimes.

  • Randian||

    Except for the following rejoinders, you are correct:

    1. Comparing violent crimes to nonviolent crimes is an inapt comparison
    2. McDonald does not cite her sources nor did she provide a total picture for the comparison years
    3. You have still failed to demonstrate that reason is wrong vis-a-vis Hispanics. They are the victims of 33% of these stops, but you have not demonstrated they commit a commensurate level of crime.

    Other than all that, yeah, you "won".

  • ||

    im not trying to "win anything"

    but again, the cops are stopping people disparately, but correlated with their disparate rates of crime OFFENSE

    period.

    something you can't refute

    the fact that you are such a petulant child that you care about "winning" is a sign of your immaturity

    note: hispanic is a cultural designator. it is much more difficult for a crime victim in many cases to know if an offender was hispanic. hispanics can be black, white, or asian.

    that's why the racial data is far more robust.

  • sloopyinca||

    note: the heather mcdonald article also has a very nice graph (thus not directly citable here) that illustrates the vast disparity in offender data AS REPORTED BY CRIME VICTIMS (note: crime victims are disproportionately minorities. they are overwhelmingly more likely to victims of part I crimes especially. young black males are several times more likely to be homicide victims in NYC. ).

    First off, people make mistakes when identifying others, so I'd much rather reserve judgement on these "reported" statistics until I see how well they individually correlate with convictions for the individual crimes.

    Second, how does a homicide victim report a crime? By your measure, wouldn't the data on who commits homicide be rather small if they are AS REPORTED BY CRIME VICTIMS (your words)?

  • ||

    you can "much rather" do whatever you want

    crime victimization is the most robust, and you can't refute it. you can clutch at straws all you want

    crime victims, disproportionately minorities are reporting being disproportionately victimized

    period

    and you cannot refute that, nor provide even a sliver of evidence they are lying.

    that's the facts and you can't refute them

    again. refute her data

    because otherwise, the NYPD is racist meme is bullshit

    cops who stop disproportionately correlated with disproportionate offender rates cannot be presumed to be racist

  • sarcasmic||

    Come up with data about marijuana use by race, not reported violent crime.

    Otherwise the data, however correct or incorrect it may be, is totally irrelevant.

    You lose Dunphy.

    Loser.

  • sloopyinca||

    and you cannot refute that, nor provide even a sliver of evidence they are lying.

    Why would I have to prove they are lying? Shouldn't the onus be on Miss McDonald to substantiate her victims' claims with the court rulings in the cases where a claim was made?

    She is making a claim based on victim testimony. The onus is on her to substantiate those claims with the rulings of the court. I shouldn't have to prove a negative, dumbass.

  • aelhues||

    I seem to have missed where racism became the primary issue here. The primary issue is that stopping and frisking individuals without sufficient cause is unconstitutional. Clearly NYPD was doing just that.

  • ||

    i didn't say it was the primary issue. i said (at first) it was an unsupported claim, and now i am citing data to show it's a false claim.

    i am the first to say that NYPD should be, and have said this several times, CONDEMNED FOR VIOLATING THE 4th amendment

    imo, that is THE ISSUE

    the alleged racism issue is a red herring, and false as well

  • sloopyinca||

    i am the first to say that NYPD should be, and have said this several times, CONDEMNED FOR VIOLATING THE 4th amendment

    Oh noes!!!!!!! Not "condemned"!!!?!?!???!??!?!?

    Whatever will we do when cops are being "condemned" for violating one of the most basic tenets of our nation.

    Fuck off, slaver. These animals need to be convicted and imprisoned for a very long time as an example to others that would do the same to any man, woman or child for any reason whatsoever.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I keep forgetting the Precautionary Principle is a primary bulwark of libertarianism. How silly of me.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    again, refute her data.

    What do her data have to do with random warrantless searches intended to boost arrest numbers for victimless crimes? Show your work.

  • ||

    nothing. for the umpteenth time, i strongly condemn the NYPD for making stops bsaed on LESS than reasonable suspicion (in many cases)

    i am saying the only EVIDENCE i can find, and that nobody here can refute, shows they are not doing it with racism in mind

    i am a fierce critic of their 4th amendment violAtions and have posted that at least 1/2 dozen times

    as somebody who has made well over 1,000 terry stops myself, i believe in the 4th amendment the protections it offers us all. and i condemn the NYPD fo violating it

    and for the umpteenth time, i love the fact that MY state respects far GREATER privacy protections than the 4th. the 4th is insuficient. my state recognizes privacy and is far more respectful of liberty and privacy than the federal constitution

  • sarcasmic||

    i am saying the only EVIDENCE i can find, and that nobody here can refute, shows they are not doing it with racism in mind

    Your "evidence" is with regards to reported violent crime, which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with looking for drugs in peoples' pockets.

    You want to come up with some MEANINGFUL statistics, then come up with some about drug use by race.

    Otherwise you're just blowing smoke in a desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

  • kinnath||

    I do believe Dunphy has become duller that MNG.

  • ||

    i do believe you can't refute data, so you make personal attacks.

    sign of an immature person, and a lost cause

  • sarcasmic||

    So says the guy who accuses anyone who dislikes cops of being a "butthurt anti-cop bigot".

  • ||

    lol. perfect example

    when people post with names saying i should die in a fire, that all pigs should die, and openly admit to hating cops, the proof is irrefutable

  • sarcasmic||

    All kinnath did was call you "dull".

    You're as sensitive as a child. And you walk around with a club and a gun?

    I'm glad I'm on the other coast.

  • sloopyinca||

    Once more: why should we have to refute the data? If she can substantiate it with convictions, then I'll put some stock in her little study. Until then, it's kinda like all the dumbasses claiming global warming is true because the evidence is overwhelming, when the "evidence" is littered with unsubstantiated claims made by people with an agenda.

  • kinnath||

    To be more clear. When you first arrived on the scene, you usually provided good information on the processes and procedures of police enforcement that aren't visible to the average outside observer. I can't say that I agreed with you much on you conclusions, but you were generally an interesting read.

    Now is the same hackneyed bullshit over and over and over. This is the very definition of DULL.

  • sarcasmic||

    When you first arrived on the scene, you usually provided good information on the processes and procedures of police enforcement that aren't visible to the average outside observer.

    I must have arrived late, because I missed that.

  • kinnath||

    It was brief.

    Pardon me a moment -- GOD DAMN YOU MUTHER FUCKING SQUIRRELS, PUT THE SUBMIT AND REVIEW BUTTONS IN THE RIGHT FUCKING ORDER.

    But it did not last long.

  • kinnath||

    I didn't say you were right or wrong -- only that you manage to destroy as many threads as MNG did before he vanished into the ether.

  • T||

    Do I have to presume the victims are lying, or can I make the assumption that in a non-trivial number of cases they might simply be incorrect?

  • T||

    I'm going to start a cover band called Histrionic Bigotry. So far the set list consists of Fuck Tha Police, Copkiller, and 911 Is A Joke. I'm taking suggestinsg for other songs.

  • sloopyinca||

    It wouldn't be complete without this little ditty.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    as somebody who has made well over 1,000 terry stops myself, i believe in the 4th amendment the protections it offers us all. and i condemn the NYPD fo violating it

    Define "reasonable suspicion" and then show us empirically how it is a consistent and uniformly applied criterion. Or admit "driving while sketchy" is a completely random and arbitrary reason (after the fact) to pull any7body over at any time FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON WHATSOEVER.

    Or, better yet, STFU.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    How about No More Bitchin Camaro, or the Asset Forfeiture Blues?

  • Sidd Finch||

    Here's Wikipedia on the NCVS and UCR.

    According to the NCVS for 1992-2000, 43% of violent criminal acts, and 53% of serious violent crime (not verbal threats, or cuts and bruises) were reported to the police. Overall, black (49%) and American Indian (48%) victims reported most often, significantly higher than whites (42%) and Asians (40%). Serious violent crime and aggravated assault against blacks (58% and 61%) and Indians (55% and 59%) was reported more often than against whites (51% and 54%) or Asians (50% and 51%). American Indians were unusually unlikely to report a robbery (45%), as with Asians and a simple assault (31%).[16]

    Despite the differences in the amount of crime reported, comparisons of the UCR and NCVS data sets show there to be a high degree of correspondence between the two systems.[17] This correspondence extends to the racial demography of both perpetrators and victims of violent crime reported in both systems.[18]

  • Rawrface||

    I think it's time we start legalizing Marijuana everywhere. Stop living in fear and start thinking about how great the future will be! LEGALIZE IT!

    Why don't we just start legalizing it everywhere? Why are so many people still stuck in this FEAR stage...? Stop worrying, start hoping. LEGALIZE IT!

    If you live in a state where Marijuana isn't legal yet and still want the same type of highs, I suggest checking out uIntoxicate.com. It has amazingly detailed legal highs reviews and where to get them without getting ripped off!
    Also! I'm starting up a new forum dedicated to my fellows stoners. Come on over and join the high conversations! We're quite new, but VERY welcoming.

    CHECK IT: http://uintoxicate.com/
    STONER FORUMS: http://www.stonersofthestates.com/forum/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement