- Pennsylvania Among 'Terrible 10' Most Regressive Tax States
- February 4 Non-Partisan Training: HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013: HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Republican Governors Opt-In to Medicaid Expansion
- The Reports of Unions' Death Are Greatly Exaggerated
- Ask Allyson Schwartz to run for Governor
- Mind the gap: Opting Out of Medicaid Expansion Leaves Low-income Families Behind
- Jan. 14 Workshop:HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013; HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Seth Williams on Guns, Jasmine Rivera on School Closures @PFC Meetup Wednesday
- PA Revenue Strong Midway Through Year; Tax Cut Could Have Big Impact
- What to Make of the Fiscal Cliff Deal?
Stop and Frisk Policy Considered Harmful
Submitted by charlesdog12 on Fri, 02/02/2007 - 1:32pm.
I’ve been thinking about the proposed “Stop and Frisk” policies lately. It took me a while to react, because it’s pretty much par for the course. Candidates being “tough on crime” is the kind of thing that you come to expect. I have always had the position that being tough on crime is almost always being stupid on crime, but that’s not what got me upset. What upset me was the fact that we all know that this is racial profiling, and racial profiling is just plain old wrong. And if you think that it’s OK to do this as long as you have some policy wonkish board where people can go make complaints, then I implore you to read my story bellow.
There was a night when I was a teenager that I remember to this day. It’s an impressionable time in ones life. It’s when you are starting to become more of an adult and are coming into your own. You lose some of your innocence, and you start to see all of the bad things in life that you were sheltered from before, so that’s one of the reasons it had such an effect on me.
That night, my Dad went out to run an errand and took unusually long. Now my father is the kind of person that will go out for a paper and take three hours, but he was taking unusually long. As my Mother and I were sitting on the couch watching the TV, we started to worry.
Finally, my father came home. My mother and I, in annoyance, asked where he had been. It turns out that he was stopped by the cops. Supposedly, he looked like someone or something that was suspicious. So he sat in his car for over an hour while the cops did whatever it is that they do when they stop someone on a routine case of DWB (Driving While Black). This wasn’t the first time that my father was pulled over for no good reason, and it wouldn’t be the last. The funny thing is that anyone who knows my father knows in the first 5 minutes of talking to him that he isn’t a criminal.
I remember the look on his face to this day. He was a broken man, embarrassed, ashamed, humiliated, and annoyed. If you love and admire your father as much as I do, and you’ve ever seen him, a man, as strong as he is, look broken, then it is something that you will never forget, ever.
The whole point that I am trying to make is that the policies proposed by Nutter and Fattah are wrong, plain and simple. Supposedly, Nutter’s plan has some board where people can go and complain. I’ll be honest in saying that I don’t know the details of this counter-measure, and frankly, I don’t care. All I think about is that night.
And then I think about all the young Black men who are already harassed by the cops, but will be ever more so if these policies are enacted. I encourage people who support Michael Nutter and think that he walks on water to think about something. What is the probability that most “Urban Youth” will know that this board exists? Out of that group, how many do you think will actually do something about it? And finally, out of that group, how many will actually be heard, and what exactly will come of it?
I am not trying to pick on Nutter and his supporters here. I think that the reactions that many have made to his policies are pretty representative to some of the issues that I have with the progressive community at times. I think that we keep forgetting that politics is about the people. I will yell this at the top of my longs until I’m blue in the face. Good policies and being dynamic are important, but if you forget the people then you are lost.
I’ve seen over ten posts on the main board in the past few days about the contribution limits. Everyone is threatening retribution for people who vote for this Bill. At the same time, some of these same people still passionately support both Nutter and Fattah, who support racist policies. I’m not saying that I would never vote for them, but I am saying that neither deserves such passionate support.
I think that keeping the contribution limits is important, but I also think that we should keep things in perspective.
Ten points goes to anyone
Ten points goes to anyone who get’s the Geeky pun in the title.
Is it racial profiling
Is it racial profiling because they are only going to target black people or is it because the high crime areas that they would target are predominantly inhabited by black people?
And the fact two of the candidates that are proposing this are both black doesn't make it any different?
Also, maybe it wouldn't have to resort to this if more of the community, which is predominantly black, in the high crime areas would rat out the criminals more.
They aren't speaking about doing this city wide. They are planning to do this in specific areas that have excessive crime rates.
And at least for Nutter, it is to grab illegal guns. If you are out past curfew and not carrying an illegal gun, you don't have anything to worry about outside of a possible 10 minute inconvenience.
Sometimes drastic times do call for drastic measures.
I don't buy the racial profiling cry. Would it make you feel better if they did stop and frisk in Society Hill and grab all the possible 1 illegal gun being carried around past curfew where no one is getting killed?
Charles, like you I’m uneasy about stop and frisk tactics
Charles,
I am a strong supporter of Michael Nutter’s, but like you I’m uneasy about stop and frisk tactics advocated by Nutter and Fattah.
I had an expertise similar to yours in 1966. I am white and my then husband was African-American. He went out to buy milk some time in the early evening and did not return until around 4:00 a.m. the next morning; he had been picked up and placed in a police line-up.
We had some frightening experiences at the hands of the police and didn’t know where to go to protest. (There was no Police Advisory Commission at that time.) Actually, I don’t think we even thought of trying to lodge a complaint; we were too terrified. And I have thought about those incidents during this current debate.
However, I see this as a limited response to a real emergency. Many of my students at CCP who live in violence ridden neighborhoods desperately want something done so they can walk the streets in safety.
I believe that both Nutter and Fattah are very much aware of the issues you raise and that both are concerned about the dangers. They’ve come to the conclusion that strong measures must be taken to restore order to neighborhoods that residents describe as a war zone.
I forwarded your message to William Johnson of the Police Advisory Commission, the organization Michael Nutter was instrumental in creating and I will let you know the response.
Karen
Thanks for doing that. I
Thanks for doing that. I appreciate your story as well.
And the fact two of the
And the fact two of the candidates that are proposing this are both black doesn't make it any different?
The fact that the two candidates proposing this are Black does make a difference, because THEY SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
Also, maybe it wouldn't have to resort to this if more of the community, which is predominantly black, in the high crime areas would rat out the criminals more.
The criminals causing the problems in these areas are in the minority. Anyone who could “rat someone out” is a criminal. I find it highly offensive that you think that the people in these communities live with the terrors of crime because they choose to let it happen.
And at least for Nutter, it is to grab illegal guns. If you are out past curfew and not carrying an illegal gun, you don't have anything to worry about outside of a possible 10 minute inconvenience.
Sometimes drastic times do call for drastic measures.
I don't buy the racial profiling cry. Would it make you feel better if they did stop and frisk in Society Hill and grab all the possible 1 illegal gun being carried around past curfew where no one is getting killed?
Did you read the post? It is not just a ten minute inconvenience. It’s completely and utterly demoralizing. It’s not a racial profiling cry. It’s a reality. And I think that if you or anyone in Society Hill ever had to go through what people like my Dad went through, then you would NEVER agree to let this happen.
Drastic times do call for drastic measures. There has to be a better way to get the guns off the streets. But more importantly, you can’t solve crime problems with more cops. You have to get at the root of crime, which is lack of education, poverty, lack of healthcare, etc.
I’m normally pretty open to dissent, but you just sound like a racist in your comment.
You are 100% wrong. I live
You are 100% wrong.
I live in the Sharswood area (between Brewerytown and Francisville). Someone was shot and killed in front of my house at 10:30 at night. I heard the gun shots and after putting on shoes, went out side. There were already about 10 people around the body.
To the police, "no one saw anything". After about two months, they eventually caught the guy by putting pressure on other criminals in the area.
The guy literally lived around the corner.
Also, after he was taken away, two people on my block said they knew who had done it the whole time and told me most of the neighborhood did as well.
So yes, I have first hand experience of people not turning people in, even when the guy is living 100 feet away from you. So sorry, I have no sympathy for the "stop snitching" mentality and culture.
In regards to the 10 minute inconvenience, this is stop and frisk. Their plan is not "stop and throw everyone in a jail". If it turns into that, it is obviously a problem.
As for calling me a racist, blow it out your ***. I love how if you don't agree on a race issue, the race card gets played right away. Way to hide behind color and ignorance.
Regarding what you call a "stop snitching mentality and culture"
This "stop snitching mentality and culture" exists and is a problem. You have seen this firsthand. How, then, to change it? Why do you think it exists?
Even ADA's I've talked to discuss the need to have individual neighborhood residents be active and invested in reducing crime on their blocks. This cannot happen until there is both a sufficient base level of safety so individuals do not fear for their lives and families, and an establishment of some level of trust and partnership between the police and community residents. If non-criminal community residents feel alienated and targeted by the police at the expense of trying to achieve the first goal, the emergency-power-gained safety will not stick.
Jennifer
Honestly, my
Honestly, my solution--better witness protection. I wrote a post a few months ago about a witness being killed who was, believe it or not in the city's significantly under-funded program.
Terry Stops are constitutional. So, I'm not really that uncomformtable in using them. But, if you want witnesses--protect them.
Yeah, I'd like next to turn this back
to the old conversation about progressive solutions to the violence problem. Witness protection seems an essential and productive focus in the near term.
Respectfully, I'd say though that stop-and-frisk (including Terry-type stops) is an area where I am uncomfortable pushing the constitutional boundary. That is, plenty of stops are 'constitutional' but a regime where they are the norm is far from desirable. All the law on the books is not that good. Not to mention problems of application alluded to below.
Jennifer
I do not think we are
I do not think we are looking at the "norm" either, but we can disagree on that point.
Surely, all enforcement can cross the line into an intolerable condition. But, we have a great system that has, over time, show its ability to control those impulses or stop them soon after starting. I have more faith than you, but I understand you point.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Notably, this puts you right in the "Wardlow" area
It is considered constitutionally sufficient probable cause when you have a high drug area, plus someone running when the police approach them.
No more individualized suspicion is necessary.
Given very real fear of police persecution, this can easily result in unfair, if not unconstitutional, detentions. If we are talking trade-offs, we need to actually have that conversation.
Jennifer
I may forget my criminal procedure . . .
But, "probable cause" (in the traditional sense) is not needed to justify a Terry stop. And, I do not think Nutter or anyone else is talking about people walking home from the grocery getting "stopped and frisked." In fact, they are used now, every day. Their purpose, public safety and police protection. A properly trained police officer, with a clear directive can conduct a constitutional Terry stop with ease and without problem.
The standard:
A police officer must have a reasonable suspiscion that a crime is about to take place and that the person is armed and dangerous. The focus in these crime plans, my friends, is not to harass grandmothers, but to determine if a person is armed, to stop a crime, and to protect the men and women in blue, which is something I honestly care about.
The biggest crime we can committ as a society is to not protect our citizens--within the bounds of the law. This is the law. Also, remember, we have courts (and now a robust media) that can redress (or cover) violations of civil rights and/or exclude evidence if need be. But, we have to be real here--these candidates are talking about using tactics that are in the arsenal already, since 1968.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
The standard.
Yes, sorry, "reasonable suspicion" is certainly the general standard for stop and frisk. Nothing is needed, really, to initiate investigative detention at the stage the person can still walk away.
But you know that stop-and-frisk is not just about the frisking, i.e. the confined search for (illegal) weapons. The whole point is to have a justified interaction with someone the police thinks is suspicious for whatever (typically intuitive) reason that can potentially be leveraged to a larger-scale search, interrogation, or detention depending on the content of the interaction.
Given a context where people are uneducated about their rights (though you are correct that there is a more robust civil rights bar, this doesn't help someone on the street at the time), and where the police have absolutely no constitutional obligation to accurately inform someone they stop whether they are free to go or not, you really risk casting the net too wide and simply giving police more latitude to go by their presumptions of likely criminality (in some cases racial profiling) rather than decent tips or evidence.
And yeah, you can't argue stop-and-frisk as a permissible tactic. Of course it is. It is about the fact that the state of emergency proposal means that there will almost always be reasonable suspicion. One point where I wonder about constitutionality is whether this falls to close to that Chicago anti-gang/anti-loitering ordinance that was overturned, or whether the claimed emergency powers override somehow.
Jennifer
I would like to ask the
I would like to ask the family of the hundreds of gun murder victims if they would want "stop and search" and corner cameras if it could haved saved the life of their loved ones
For context
It is a good point, and reminds me that some of us having this conversation do not live in areas where they will be potentially subject to the measures we are criticizing or advocating. To a certain extent, I think this understanding animated Charles's post.
Jennifer
They would probably say yes,
They would probably say yes, but that is a pretty cheezy thing to say, don't you think? It doesn't matter how bad a policy is in that context. They will always say yes.
Those who give up freedom for safety deserve neither.
Who thought that 7 years ago
Who thought that 7 years ago that anyone could have stripped searched at an airport? We all would be crying about our civil rights but after 911 we all acept the searchs as being for the betterment and safety of society as a whole. Life in the 21st century is getting worst and we have to adjust. The 2nd Admendment has to be updated.
I think that you have to say
I think that you have to say some pretty retarded stuff to be strip searched at an Airport, so I have no problem with that. But I, in general, have a certain distaste for all the Post 911 world crap that’s going on.
But these stop and frisk tactics aren’t really needed, and I don’t think that they will be that effective. It’s sort of like trying to put out a fire in your house by pissing on it. This is beside the fact that I think that these tactics are just plain old wrong.
I meant just plain searched
I meant just plain searched (my mistake). Something strong has to be done. We owe it to our young people to protect them from themselves. Prisons are not the answer,they do more harm than good. A lot of these shootings are a result of drug money. Maybe we should revisit our drug war tactics. We lost that war big time. Take the gangsterism off the streets by legalizing and controling some drugs and give these kids a chance to see that you could make a decent living with better paying jobs rather than selling. Also, we have to deal with the gun laws....things have changed since the 1780's when the right to bear arm was enacted.
As a proud owner of a
As a proud owner of a firearm, I disagree. We need a bit more control of hand guns--not less.
Though, there is a legal distinction between hand guns and long guns, which is fine with me. Over 99.9% of the gun murders in Philadelphia last year were committed with a hand gun.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Witness protection is
Witness protection is important. Also, if you turn in a killer or major drug dealer, the possibility of them being out on the street in 2 years looking for revenge is discouraging as well.
Another reason for the no snitch mentality is the labeling of being a snitch. From what I have gathered from living where I have and talking and being involved, is that it is better to side with black criminal than the government. It's almost like you are a traitor. So, I think part of it is lack of hope. If you don't see yourself getting out of that environment, you are better off being on their good side.
Fourth Ammendment Rights
President Bush not withstanding, we still have a fourth ammendment!
My brother is a criminal investigator in Denver, where they just started a NYC style quality of life stop and enforce minor crimes. The folks are scared like crazy. Untill the community gets involved, this approach is doomed to failure. In unity there is strength.
Greater penalties are needed against witness intimidation. As long as people are afraid to turn in the bad guys, things will continue to get worse.
Okay...
So you're saying it failed in New York? Hmmm, I just moved back from there and I don't recall gun deaths in the news every night. In fact, if I'm not mistaken NYC is now the safest big city, by far, in the USA.
That said, I do think that greater community involvement is needed, and that it has to be a part of a broader anti-crime strategy. At the moment I'm guessing that the DA would just release half of the people without trial, so I guess I don't know why we should go through the trouble if we're not serious about really dealing with the rampant crime and violence in our neighborhoods.
Witness protection is another subject that has been talked about on this site, and we all agree, but it's also gotta be part of a broader strategy...
And how many high profile
And how many high profile police killings and beatings do they have there? Not such a simple comparison.
The high profile police killings and beatings...
are not the result of stop and frisk, so far as I know. Most of the high profile cases have to do with plain clothed officers (very common in the apple) who are usually part of some sort of task force. Please show me some shootings that are related, because I don't know of any...
They are the result of
They are the result of aggressive policing though, right?
You are saying NY has a low crime rate. But, they also have a really aggressive method of policing that has created a lot of hostility, to say the least.
Philadelphia has a high rate
Philadelphia has a high rate of police shooting suspects too. I would hardly say our policing is as aggressive as NYC's. In fact, last year police in Philly killed 20 suspects--the most of any major city. New York had 13.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
I disagree...
While NYC certainly has aggressive policing, I think that the few post-Guliani high-profile cases are a result of chance (after all there are a ton of NYC police). During Bloomberg I did not see the sort of hostility you are assuming is still there, and it is still extraordinarily safe. I guess I enjoy being able to walk around at night without cringing every time I see another guy walking towards me (a natural result of getting stuck up about 100 times when I was younger), though I guess the fear of Philly is part of what gives it such charm.
But, again, leadership style makes a HUGE difference. If the cops are using stop and frisk as part of a larger neighborhood improvement project, as seems to be the case in NYC under Bloomberg, than I don't think you'll get the same uproar as you got when it seemed part of a vendetta by a petty and mean spirited asshole (Guliani).
See below. Despite court
See below. Despite court orders and legal agreements stemming from the fact that they racially profiled, the NYPD did not release information for years.
I'd also like to point out...
that things have seemed to calm down a lot since Bloomberg took over from that megalomaniac asshole Guliani. To give but one example, a few years back a cop was on the roof of a housing project and mistakenly shot and killed an unarmed young man. Guliani would have, without a doubt, stood next to that cop in a press conference and claimed that the young man was a criminal and probably deserved it. Bloomberg stood with the family and apologized over and over again for the horrendous mistake and their tragic loss.
Sometimes the attitude you have while doing these things makes all the difference in the world...
Stop and Frisk
Well, a lot of people don't seem thrilled it with it in NY:
NY Times, three days ago:
As the article says, the controversy recently erupted because of yet another shooting- Sean Bell- that didn't have anything to do with stop and frisk, necessarily, but is a flash point for people not too happy with the NYPD, and how it has implemented its policies and dealt with the community.
NY, in fact, basically has a court ordered agreement on stop and frisk, because they were found to be racially profiling. Yet, even now, they don't seem to be disclosing information. I think that is a pretty good indicator that whether this is a good idea or not- it is pretty hard to control once you start.
Well, of course there is
Well, of course there is going to be racial disparity. The high crime areas tend to be low income which tend to be high black population. It doesn't mean blacks were being targeted specifically.
Did you read the article?
Did you read the article? The study found that taking into account factors like crime rate, African-Americans were being racially profiled.
I retract my statement. I
I retract my statement. I don't know why I didn't see the part about the state study. So in that instance, it does seem NY was abusing the situation.
I wish they'd release those damned numbers...
Because it was no secret that Gulliani was/is a racist bastard, whereas I cannot believe that Bloomberg is racist, at least not overtly so (I believe most people carry some racist beliefs/tendencies, as I believe it is human nature to discriminate against "others"). Again, my anecdotal experiences lead me to believe that things have gone from boiling to a nice simmer in NYC, but I could be wrong, of course...
I think what I read out of
I think what I read out of that article is that even if Bloomberg is no racist, and even if the Department has entered in legal agreements, it is really, really a hard thing to control.
Absolutely
The blue wall is thick and opaque in NYC, and it is extremely hard for anyone, including the mayor, to challenge the NYPD. That certainly is something to worry about, and something that should be addressed, but that doesn't mean that things haven't improved under Bloomberg, which I think they have, most notably on the community relations side, where he can exert a greater amount of control.
Avoid simple comparisons
There are so many relevant variables in comparing gun violence rates in NY and Philly, I think it is dangerous to make comparisons blithly. It's complicated to evaluate all the costs and benefits of NYPD tactics in NY in New York, let alone trying to extrapolate and examine the effects of applying those tactics to other communities.
When you talk of NY as a whole, are you getting a picture of what has happened in communities like the South Bronx, or other communities that might be more comparable to large segments of North or SW Philly? Sure, Manhatten is safer, and I suppose that "stopping and frisking" young black youth in Center City might reduce aggregate crime stats, but assessing out the differing impact of the proposed "tough on crime" iniatives being trotted out onto the election platforms seems more complicated (see Charlesdog's post a few days back about his family's experience).
Sorry....
But the entire city is safer, not just Manhatten. Take a walk through Bushwick, the Southside of Queens, or any number of neighborhoods and you'll note the difference almost immediately.
Of course NYC also has a booming economy, so I agree that the comparisons aren't completely apt...
Not that Dan's brother isn't a credible source
but do you have anything other than your anecdotal evidence that speaks to how the residents of those communities feel about the more aggressive policing tactics in NY?
My main concern about the T on C policies being floated by candidates is that they aren't really well thought out approaches, but more campaigning for votes. So, I'm curious to gain a wider perspective on the issue - and I'm not inclined to take what the candidates claim about their proposals at face value.
I hear you...
...and while I don't have much more than anecdotal evidence from my friends, former coworkers, and political colleagues, I still think it's pretty easy to tell that the tensions have lessoned since Mayor Hardass left office. Again, I think it comes down to leadership style--for example Bloomberg is very aggressive at reaching out to minority leaders, he isn't overtly racist, and it's not all about him vs. those damned liberals/minorities/wimps.
That said, if the candidates are proposing this in a vacuum, and not as part of a bigger crime fighting plan (that obviously needs to be put forth for this to do much more than create more antagonism between the police and the neighborhoods they patrol) than it's pretty terrible. But if it is a part of a broader plan for dealing with crime, particularly the gun crime that is plauging our city, than I think that it has to be considered, at the very least.
If you have some better ideas for how to get the illegal hand guns off of our streets, than I'm all ears, but I for one am sick of waiting for Philly to do something about the violent crime that plagues the city, and so I welcome this as one part of a bigger puzzle for dealing with this horrendous situation.
Well....
I do think that in balance there needs to be more of an emphasis on "root causes," (and, ironically enough, it seems that Knox's rhetoric is the strongest on that point). My own pet issue is conflict resolution and peer mediation training in schools, because I've seen first-hand how well that works.
I'm not unsypmathetic to the idea that more immediate measures should be taken. But I'd be more comfortable with such an approach if I see them as being presented very deliberately as part of a broader approach - as you describe, and I'm not convinced I've seen that. I also agree that the degree to which such measures will be successful will be proportional to how much they're accompanied by broad-based community support.
So, I would like seeing the candidates highlight building community support as the major plank of their platform - rather than aggressive policing. And I think that the ability to connect to the community should be a key criteria for evaluating the candidates. And I'm not sure I've seen which candidate does that. My sense is that Evans has the most credibility when working with the greater community on these issues (he's focused on gun violence for quite a while). But I live in the NW, so I'm not sure how to make that assessment. Somehow, having ties to ward leaders and other functionaries within the party doesn't translate to valid community ties in my mind.
So let me get this strait.
So let me get this strait. The whole neighborhood knew who did it, but you didn’t know? Why did they know and you didn’t know? Don’t you live there too?
And yes, I said that you sound like a racist, cause you do sound like a racist. I’m sorry if I offended you though.
I think that you are probably just clueless. The whole point of the post was for me to put a personal touch on why I think that racial profiling and stop and frisk is wrong. You seem to think that it is a minor inconvenience to be a person who is constantly stopped and frisked. I will tell you, it’s not a minor inconvenience. It is completely demoralizing.
Typically in political
Typically in political discourse, unless there is actual racism in an argument, the person calling someone else a racist usually is doing so because they have nothing better to say.
Now, I do not want to accuse you of that, but perhaps you can explain what your fellow poster said above that is racist.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Read what he said again. He
Read what he said again. He suggested that the fact that two Black men proposed the idea didn’t mean that it was a racist policy. I think that that is nonsense. Do you actually think that the policies aren’t racist? Don’t you think that they are made to appeal more to White people than anyone else? Do you know of any Black men who think that this policy is a good idea? Are you prepared to minimalize how disastrous racial profiling is? Are you prepared to say that being continuously stopped and frisked is not demoralizing? Is it really just an inconvenience?
No, I don't think the
No, I don't think the policies are racist. You do need to explain that. Are you pretty much saying that Fattah and Nutter, two black politicians, are racist?
The proposed policies that you are saying are racist.
Do you realize that you are pretty much saying Nutter and Fattah believe that black people are prone to crime so they are putting forth these policies to curb it?
And yes, I do know of black men that think it is a good idea. Two in fact. Nutter and Fattah.
The policies are racist
The policies are racist because they affect almost exclusively Black people, and they subject people to what I consider a horrible act. It is also racist because it appeals to the racist tendencies that we all have (even Black people). And I honestly don’t think that the candidates actually, truly, believe that it’s a good idea. I think that they are doing it to appeal to the tough on crime people.
Or, maybe they are doing it
Or, maybe they are doing it to make people safe. Holy crap--that is a terrible idea.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
I'm sorry, but that is not
I'm sorry, but that is not racism.
Just because it affects predominantly one race, that doesn't make it racist.
If the action is done BECAUSE of the race involved, it is racist. It is a significant distinction.
heart attacks are racist too!
I'm just saying...
Wow Charles, that is a
Wow Charles, that is a mouthful of questions.
First, I do not think the policies are racist. I think their implementation could be. But, on there own they are focusing on high crime areas regardless of the racial makeup.
Second, I think they are made to help good people feel safe where they live. I think they are made to appeal to everyone who wants to have a city with less than 400 murders, which is unacceptable if you ask me.
Third, yes, I do know black men who think the policy, if carried out in a legal fashion, believe it is a good idea.
Fourth, I am not minimalizing anything but your accusation of racism. Racial profiling is a real problem. If Nutter is attempting to lower crime by focusing on high crime neighborhoods, it makes sense for short term law enforcement. Murder rates, gun shot victims--the numbers do not lie. People are getting hurt and killed every day. Are you prepared to accept that?
Fifth, I have been stopped and frisked. It is absolutely demoralizing for those who are not committing crimes. For those who are, however, I imagine us caring about how they are demoralized really is not as important as ensuring they do not hurt anyone, or complete the crime. Sorry, maybe it's just me.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
OK. I guess that I have to
OK. I guess that I have to explain my bias. I don’t separate the policies from the implementation. Because of my experiences, I really don’t think that such policies can ever result in a good implementation where pretty much anyone who sneezes isn’t going to get frisked. So, transitively, the policy is bad.
Yes, I live there too, but
Yes, I live there too, but there was no doubt I would go to the police with the info. In fact, out of the whole area, I was the only one that went down to make a statement, that night, in front of everyone, with the police. So, the grapevine didn't pass the info to me because I would tell the police. I don't mind having the rep that I will call the police. ;)
That is also why, the people I am on terms with, didn't tell me till after he was brought in and I brought it up.
I am not saying it couldn't be demoralizing. I am just adding that some of the communities in question need to own up and help solve the problem as well. You have these neighborhoods with cultures of "stop snitchin" but also wanting the government to come down and help. So, what happens? The government tries to crush the problem quickly.
Also, I would like to add, I can not get a single person to participate in town watch. I can not get it going unless there are five people. I have one. Me. The community has given up, for many valid reasons. If they don't start fighting back as well, emergency stop and frisk measures are what it leads to. I don't think stop and frisk is the best solution, but it something has to be done.
Maybe the lull it would create in an area will give the residents breathing room and the ability to regroup and hold off any return of the criminal element once the stop and frisk force leaves. That is what I would hope for if that plan went in. Stop and frisk needs to be combined with community involvement. If it is treated just like a band-aid, nothing changes.
I grew up in Germantown, and
I grew up in Germantown, and I really cannot recall anyone who wasn’t shady who knew what was going on and just let it happen and didn’t tell anyone. I mean, are these people actually not shady?
I’m not sure what your background is or where you grew up, but where I grew up, people were and still are constantly trying to stop the crime that’s going on. A few months after I moved out, my neighbors, two doors down, were held up at gunpoint in front of their house. There have been constant robberies there too.
So people have been fighting, for years to try and work with the police and work with their local elected officials, and they almost always get the cold shoulder. They know the fights that they can win, and trying to have the Police and the elected officials really be involved in the community and not just blow smoke is a battle that they have fought over and over again and haven’t won.
I would be curious to talk to your neighbors. I think that a lot of them, the non shady ones at least, are just apathetic because they don’t think that they have the power to do anything about it. I think that a lot of them have probably fought that battle before and have lost.
I agree with some of what
I agree with some of what you are saying. I mentioned in a previous post I think part of the problem is lack of hope. After a decade or more of fighting, you lose faith. So, I even put it on new residents that are moving it to put forth effort. Since I have been aggressive about even just small quality of life issues, like people hanging outside at 3 in the morning blasting music out of their car (I go outside and tell them to move along) a good half the block has stuck up for me and encouraged it as well. After 6 months of it (felt longer) the block has gone quiet by the time 10 or 11 pm rolls around. Noise pollution has gone down and people loitering has dropped significantly. It took some fresh energy to get the spark fired again, but a lot of the people in the area does want change, it just has to be jump started.
And yes, I am white. Does that make me racist because all the people I told to move on were black (even though no white people were loitering or parked)?
The best solution is not stop and frisk. The best solution is for the community getting reenergized and waging war on its on ground. In some neighborhoods, it may take stop and frisk to make the "good people" feel emboldened enough to take up the fight. Either way, community involvement is the key.
As for any of the people being shady, I can't say. Some people I can definitely categorize as "shady" but some are legitimately good people as well. They don't want to get involved. Which leads to another point. Typically in my area, violent crime happens only if you are involved with it. Its a drug war and pride war going on. So, people feel "relatively" safe because as long as you keep your nose clean, you aren't a target.
That's my theory.
By your background, I meant
By your background, I meant where you grew up. It was in the context of my explanation about how the people in my neighborhood were struggling. It was just my assumption that the experiences that you are having are newer to you. So I wasn’t trying to say anything by it.
What you are doing in your area is good. Keep up the good work.
Charles,
You are right. These elements of the crime policy papers should spark concern, concern beyond one-off references in newspaper articles to the possibly questionable constitutionality of stop-and-frisk. To assume that a citizen or other review board will catch the whatever infringements of civil rights is caused by such a program echoes for me the statements of senators (not least Spector) who voted for the Detainee Treatment Act curtailing habeas, but said they were confident that the courts would 'strip out the unconstitutional bits.' The 'state of emergency' aspect to Nutter's plan is especially troubling (though the attempts to incorporate released prisoners into the job force and into civic life are necessary and welcome).
I'd like to see real critique of the plans, and have been thinking about staging something at school with a mix of people represented.
More on substance soon.
Jennifer
Okay, substance.
As for Nutter,
Mayoral declaration of a "Crime Emergency":
Nutter explictly wants to invoke the mayor's emergency powers as given in the City Charter. These special powers would allow him to impose the following limitations: prohibit or limit outdoor gatherings, halt or limit movement of vehicles in those areas, impose a curfew, and prohibit the public sale or carrying of weapons.
It seems unimaginable that such powers would be used across the board in all the areas cited as likely being subject to the state of emergency (e.g. "Point Breeze, Strawberry Mansion, and Kingsessing"). The question becomes where the line (say of permissible outdoor gatherings) is drawn, on what basis and with what parameters? How much discretion is being given to the police under this regime, which by its terms (if Nutter exercises those powers he is claiming) would seem to give them latitude to interrogate, search, or arrest any individual within a targeted enforcement zone who is engaged in any one of a range of actions that would otherwise (say, in Center City) be completely legal.
There is a difference between targeting high crime areas to exempt residents from various civil liberties, and targeting "crime hotspots" for heavier enforcement. I'd like a more thorough comparison of the hotspot strategy in LA (a city not without its own police overreaching), Boston, Minneapolis, and Indianapolis, the cities Nutter cites.
To the extent that Nutter is wedded to this idea (he cites Mayor Goode as precedent), any declaration of emergency should be imposed with a much tighter time frame than Nutter's incredibly open-ended "the emergency powers will be extended until crime has significantly decreased and safety has been restored to all parts of Philadelphia."
Stop-and-frisk:
Nutter says that he wants to use "constitutional stop-and-frisk" procedures to find illegal guns in "targeted enforcement zones" (which are the city's "most crime-plagued neighborhoods").
Personally, I don't believe the important line is between constitutional and non-constitutional stop-and-frisk procedures, to the extent you can neatly draw that line. Having a plan that is significantly based on pre-identifying areas where different (and new) procedures will apply means that almost any stop-and-frisk or car search could be legal (given that the rules were redrawn to outlaw otherwise legal behaviors).
The issue is not "stop-and-frisk based on reasonable suspicion of illegal weapons." Police can already do that. The issue is an emphasis on stop-and-frisk in a context where the mayor has made everyone in a given area a potential criminal by curtailing what they may do legally (driving, walking, gathering). The police then have much wider latitude to stop, question, and possibly frisk people just by virtue of their driving, walking, or gathering, which are now reasonably suspicious. Whether or not constitutional lines are being crossed, this risks aggrevating the mistrust between communities and the police, particularly in a climate where fear of collaboration with the police leaves many crimes unsolved and perpetrators unconvicted.
Note: there are positives. Surveillance cameras, good, if deployed effectively. Same with the focusing of resources on fugitives, repeat offenders, and parole violators. The prisoner re-entry focus is totally commendable, as is putting city government out front to take the first steps.
But if we are to really attack this crime/violence problem through vastly stepped-up policing tactics, the plan must recognize the need for and commit to sufficient police training in any new policies. To do otherwise is to ignore the experiential realities of black urban citizens, as well as others who live in neighborhoods plagued with drugs, guns, and violence.
Next Fattah, later the funding components.
Good points.
Good points.
Oh yeah now that I am talking about a mayoral candidate
I have no idea who I am voting for. Well, it won't be Knox. Those Brady guys seem kind of fun...
Jennifer
stop the madness
I think whomever is against stop and frisk needs to propose an alternative. It has been proven to work in other cities so its nonsesne to state that these tactics are just an excuse to harrass black men. BTW, many black men who arent criminals dont feel they have anything to fear from this. It's also worth noting that HIGH CRIME areas are the target, not all black neighborhoods of the city. To call this racial profiling is nonsense when the application is based on geography. Latinos and whites in Kensington or Port Richmond are just as likely to be searched as black men on the corner in West Philly at 2am or whatever. You cant criticize these policies without explaining how you would do better. Saving the lives of young people on the street has to be a high priority and dettering criminals from carrying concealed weapons is a proven way to do that. Maintaining the status quo because some people feel they are going to be randomly searched everytime they step out their front door is ridiculous.
On another note re:NYC
The biggest difference that I note between NYC and Philly is the number of cops. In NYC you can't walk two blocks without seeing a cop. In Philly it seems like you can't even get the cops to come when there's a crime.
I actually bet that assigning foot patrols to every few blocks where there is higher than normal crime would do wonders, but I guess I don't have evidence of that either. But the fact is that I almost never see cops here, and I'm guessing neither do most people, and the result is, again in my opinion, a sense of lawlessness that pervades all aspects of city life (stop signs seem like a suggestion here, for example).
one other difference...
NYC has a $2.9B budget surplus.
______________________________
Phillyville
true today....
But that wasn't the case at the beginning of Bloomberg's tenure, when we had a $6-billion deficit. Of course in the case of NYC's deficit we saw common sense plans implemented like having people pay the city for its recycling, something that will likely never happen in Philly with a strong union against it and almost certain mob involvement.