Thaddeus Howze comments on the NYPD’s ”Stop and Frisk” policy that violates minorities’ civil rights.
Stoppin’ and Friskin’, what a wonderful phrase. Stoppin’ and friskin’, ain’t no passing craze. It means no worries for the rest of our days, its a problem free, philosophy, just Stoppin’ aJamnd Friskin’.
This downright folksy and carefree state of mind toward the infringement on the civil rights of New Yorkers by the New York police department who has raised the hackles of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Minorities and people of color have been 75% of the people who are stopped under this “proactive” policing policy, said to reduce violence by targeting anyone who looks like they could be a potential suspect.
Yes, you should infer this means: the minority threat. According to Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, without such a proactive police presence, infringing on the rights of so-called innocents, “people will die.” The police admit that 90% of the time they are incorrect, but do not feel the creation of a police state mentality is the result of such aggressive activity.
“Help us to put the human face, help the public to understand the human toll and the indignities that are caused by this police abuse,” said NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman.
But she added,
“This is is not about getting involved in any conflict with the police. This is not about interfering. This is about doing your part as a citizen, as a bystander, to document what’s going on, to shine light on what’s going on, and not to get in the way.”
Reference – Nolo Press: Understanding Search and Seizure Law
Ah man, this is my city! When I heard about how the NYPD was doing this, I was so pissed off. They’ve really not got the best record with minorities, but it’d been getting better! And now this. I expect crap like this from Arizona, but not from my NYC.
My son looks like a minority and I guess you could say that he is in that his mother is of Mexican origin, but he looks more African- American. We live and have lived in an upper middle class suburb of Chicago and he’s been stopped more then once simply because of the way he looks. BTW, sagging is and was never acceptable. He’s now in his mid 20’s and is a manager at a local establishment and the funny thing is, the police that used to stop him, now know him personally. I once asked him how he felt about being stopped and strangely enough, he says it was no big deal. He even jokes that one time that he was stopped was after an old lady in the neighborhood thought he was a terrorist.
Living in the Chicago area (Chicago now having the worst reputation for gang activity in the country), I’ve listened to a lot of the law abiding residents in these neighborhoods who repeatedly complain about the violence and crime in these areas. I guess we should ask these residents as to how they feel? You know, these hard working men and women who own their homes and are trying to make a better life for their families? When we look at “stop and frisk” … what data is there as to when these actions generally take place? During the day when kids should be in school? At night when people should be at home? How many of these “stops” are based on past history with the same people? How many are repeats where the same persons been stopped in the past? Do they have tattoos, wearing gang colors? There are a lot of variables to this and I don’t think we should take things on face value alone.
I guess law enforcement is damned if ya do and damned if ya don’t. Why aren’t they doing more to stop the crime???? Maybe someone has a solution that’ll make everyone happy? In the meantime ….
Just a thought that came to me ….. Another article here at GMP was about how women view men as potential rapists/abusers simply because they’re men …. That’s okay but suspected criminals on the street in crime ridden neighborhoods?
“Just a thought that came to me ….. Another article here at GMP was about how women view men as potential rapists/abusers simply because they’re men …. That’s okay but suspected criminals on the street in crime ridden neighborhoods?”
A couple of things, first I don’t always agree with articles posted at GMP. One of the awesome things about this magazine is that it offers such hugely diverse opinions about things. Second, no I don’t think that assuming random men on the street are rapists just because they are men is okay. I’ve said as much. I comprehend why women might think that, just as I comprehend why people might think that minorities are probably criminals in certain areas, but that doesn’t make either okay.
Also, we have this thing called the Constitution, and pretty much something like the NYPD’s new policy violates the restrictions against “illegal search and seizure.” Funnily enough, the Constitution doesn’t protect you (or anyone else) from an individual’s assumptions or even their actions, what it does is protect you against the government’s actions. So a woman assuming a man is a rapist and then avoiding him on the street is based on the same type of fear as the NYPD’s policy, but the results are entirely different. In the case of the woman, the result is an individual taking actions that do not violate the rights of the man. In the case of the NYPD, the result is a government institution taking actions that do violate the rights of the suspected criminal.
Finally, you mention in the bit that I quoted that it was happening in “crime ridden neighbourhoods.” It doesn’t actually make a whole lot of difference, but are you sure that is true? Or are “suspected criminals” being stopped in the Upper East Side too for being perceived as being in the ‘wrong’ neighbourhood?
Heather, why Arizona and not New York? Maybe you have a solution to this, to the crime, the murders, the gang activity in these areas? Is it any difference then “check points” for drunk drivers over the holidays? They do that every year in my area …. if it keeps drunk drivers off the road, I have no problem with it.
Arizona did the whole, stop and check if you look like you’re not a U.S. citizen thing a few years ago, that’s why. That’s what I was referencing.
The difference between this and ‘check points’ is that everyone gets stopped at a drunk driver check point and checked to see if they appear drunk. A person can, actually, appear drunk…and smell drunk, etc. A person does not appear to be a criminal.
And here’s the thing, I lived in New York for a few years, and it’s pretty dang safe in comparison to a lot of other cities. Not to mention the fact that the police even admit that most of the time they’re wrong and that they are disproportionately stopping minorities. This isn’t actually solving any problems; it’s just making all the frightened privileged folks feel like at least they are doing something about this perceived menace.
I bet the majority of stop and frisks is also targeted against men, but that seems to be downplayed.
These are not checkpoints, so you don’t have the option to avoid them. These are not reported as being active so citizens have the option of not going out or making a different choice about avoiding them. These people are not operating vehicles so they are not a threat by being potentially high and driving under the influence.
These are random street searches of individuals. Citizens who have been chosen to be stopped, randomly (or in this case, not quite so randomly) searched on the street, even though the police have no “probable cause” to do so, and the Citizen has committed no crime. This sounds really good if you believe that “proactive policing” really works and don’t mind losing another right in the ever-encroaching war to “protect” us from: invasion, minorities, terrorists, migrant workers, unemployed homeless, dirty street people, violent, unemployed, or unhappy youth.
After all, between the rights-obliterating Patriot Act, the airport grope-fest of the TSA and the potential of the “indefinite detention, incarceration, without a trial” of the NDAA, what is one more indignity in our modern slide into “third-worldism” where the poor have no rights, no opportunity and no recourse against the police. Welcome to Kochlandia, where oppressing minorities isn’t a problem until the people doing the oppressing forget to only oppress minorities and start oppressing everyone. But by then, it’s too late to do anything about it. Puts me in mind of a poem I remember from my youth.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Yes, all of this. I was waiting for you to get to that poem, though…