Bloomberg: "We disproportionately stop whites too much. And minorities too little"

Status
Not open for further replies.

GK86

Homeland Security Fail
Full title of the article is:

Mayor Bloomberg on stop-and-frisk: It can be argued ‘We disproportionately stop whites too much. And minorities too little’


Couldn't fit it all in. Searched and didn't find a thread.

Pushing back against critics of stop-and-frisk policing, Mayor Bloomberg Friday said it could be argued that the Police Department stops white people too many times and non-whites too little.

The comments – made one day after the City Council passed two bills to rein in the controversial police tactic – touched off a firestorm of criticism.

Speaking on his weekly radio show, Bloomberg sought to rebut critics who cite the high percentage of blacks and Hispanics stopped by the police as proof that stop-and-frisk has unfairly singled out minorities.

“One newspaper and one news service, they just keep saying, ‘Oh, it’s a disproportionate percentage of a particular ethnic group.’ That may be. But it’s not a disproportionate percentage of those who witnesses and victims describe as committing the murders,” Bloomberg said.

“In that case, incidentally, I think, we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little,” the mayor said. “It’s exactly the reverse of what they’re saying. I don’t know where they went to school, but they certainly didn’t take a math course, or a logic course.”

Complaints in the black community about the aggressive use of stop-and-frisk policing have led to a federal lawsuit challenging the practice and fueled a passionate debate in the mayoral race.

Several mayoral hopefuls sharply criticized Bloomberg for his remarks Friday.

“His comments weren't worthy of any elected official, much less the mayor of the city of New York,” said Democrat Bill Thompson, the only black candidate in the race.

Another Democrat, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, urged followers on Twitter to retweet if they agreed that "Bloomberg's statement today that minorities are stopped and frisked ‘too little’ is outrageous and out of touch.”

Complaints in the black community about the aggressive use of stop-and-frisk policing have led to a federal lawsuit challenging the practice and fueled a passionate debate in the mayoral race.

To buttress the mayor’s remarks, his office released a set of statistics. The numbers showed that 87% of the people stopped under stop-and-frisk in 2012 were black or Latino, and that 9% were white. That same year, more than 90% of those identified as murder suspects were blacks or Latino; just 7% were white.

Critics of stop-and-frisk charge that such numbers are irrelevant. They charge that cops indiscriminately go after young black and Hispanic men on bogus grounds, and that nearly nine out of ten people who are stopped are innocent.

Thompson called a mid-afternoon news conference just to denounce Bloomberg’s comments. He claimed the mayor seemed to be suggesting that blacks and Latinos were “automatically” murder suspects.

“I just found it to be an incredibly insulting moment,” Thompson said.

De Blasio said the mayor’s comments ignored the fact that most of those who are stopped and frisked committed no crime.

“Stop-and-frisk is being used with an incredibly broad brush,” he said. “And the best evidence in the world is the vast majority of those stopped are innocent.”

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said that she “strongly” disagreed with Bloomberg’s comments.

“We have too many stops that overwhelmingly focus on young men of color, yielding very few weapons,” she said.

“Stop, question and frisk needs to be reformed significantly, precisely because young men of color are disproportionately stopped in New York.”
 
The entire flaw in this is:

#1 Homicides are the only type of crimes people commit.

#2 Crime is going down. Why get more intrusive with it?
 
ibaUfYga8dt9p0.gif
 
the mayor is arguing over 3 percent. mathematically true, but just doesn't jibe with public sentiment. sorry white people, you're gonna get frisked.
 
the mayor is arguing over 3 percent. mathematically true, but just doesn't jibe with public sentiment. sorry white people, you're gonna get frisked.

Technically you have to match a description of an at large suspect to be stopped and frisked. So if the numbers were different that would be a sign of needless affirmative action?
 
Yes Mr. Bloomberg yes.



*someone get Mr. Bloomberg to his room , I think he's messed himself*.
 
the mayor is arguing over 3 percent. mathematically true, but just doesn't jibe with public sentiment. sorry white people, you're gonna get frisked.
The problem is that the amount of animosity this is generating is likely not worth the relatively marginal trade-off.
 
Stupid thing to say, especially when the difference in numbers is only 2%. I think he makes sense but I'm a white guy and I honestly don't expect the general public to hear anything like this and not lose their shit. People love to react without thinking, especially when it is personal.

Spock would say this is logical.
 
The entire flaw in this is:

#1 Homicides are the only type of crimes people commit.

#2 Crime is going down. Why get more intrusive with it?

This so much.

How does stop and frisk even help with homicide investigation? It's (most likely) mostly a drug thing.

So yea, the numbers are kind of irrelevant.
 
I don't get how this can be an issue at all..

if there's a suspect at large of a known race, obviously you want to stop people of the same race. The actually statistics match up very well with that.

So what's the problem?

(The mayor's comments were a little bit silly considering the irrelevant 3% difference in the stats, but meh..)
 
I don't get how this can be an issue at all..

if there's a suspect at large of a known race, obviously you want to stop people of the same race. The actually statistics match up very well with that.

So what's the problem?

(The mayor's comments were a little bit silly considering the irrelevant 3% difference in the stats, but meh..)

Do you know what stop and frisk actually is and how it is implemented?
 
This whole argument is stupid. Why is he releasing murder statistics together with frisking statistics? How are those related? Are the 87% and 90% the same people, or is this just an example of how Bloomberg doesn't understand how to interpret statistics? If they are related, then surely their failure to identify white people as murder suspects could be related to how few white people they frisk, and if they aren't then Bloomberg doesn't have a leg to stand on.
 
The good news is that the NYC City Council voted for more oversight and restrictions for the stop and frisk program and that they have enough votes to override Bloomberg's veto.
 
The number of murder suspects is completely irrelevant to the number of stop and frisks. They're completely unrelated.
 
NYC is probably the biggest market in the world for pure cocaine. Who's using this cocaine? Upper-class whites in Manhattan. The NYPD generally ignores whites when it comes to stops and searching for drugs. It's been proven that drug dealing and use among whites is equivalent and in some cases higher than blacks.

High-end prostitution with illegally trafficked European women is also a big thing in NYC. The clients are typically white businessmen with money who do this regularly with impunity. Meanwhile, vice cops in the South Bronx are ready to pounce on any guy who picks up a hooker in that area.

NYPD's own stop-and-frisk statistics turned up something surprising: on average, frisks turned up more significantly more guns on whites than blacks or Hispanics.

Conclusion: whites are disproportionately not stopped and frisked. The police turn a blind eye towards them and essentially allow them to roam free and commit the same crimes that routinely land large numbers of minorities in prisons with heavy sentences. The extreme efforts taken to catch minorities slipping have created inflated crime stats that make minorities look like the majority culprits in all manner of offenses. This allows them to justify treating them like shit. Bloomberg and Kelly are fucking assholes.
 
NYC is probably the biggest market in the world for pure cocaine. Who's using this cocaine? Upper-class whites in Manhattan. The NYPD generally ignores whites when it comes to stops and searching for drugs.

High-end prostitution with illegally trafficked European women is also a big thing in NYC. The clients are typically white businessmen with money who do this regularly with impunity.

NYPD's own stop-and-frisk statistics turned up something surprising: on average, frisks turned up more significantly more guns on whites than blacks or Hispanics.

Conclusion: whites are disproportionately not stopped and frisked. The police turn a blind eye towards them and essentially allow them to roam free and commit the same crimes that routinely land large numbers of minorities in prisons with heavy sentences. Bloomberg and Kelly are fucking assholes.

And for a while crack cocaine had a heavier fine attached than cocaine. cocaine was passed around among the wealthy whites, while crack was cheaper and passed around in the inner city
 
And for a while crack cocaine had a heavier fine attached than cocaine. cocaine was passed around among the wealthy whites, while crack was cheaper and passed around in the inner city

For a while? My understanding is that to this very day something like 5g of crack-cocaine while get you a mandatory minimum sentence of 10~ years, while the equivalent for cocaine is 500g.Clear and deliberate racism.

Fake edit:

http://www.ehow.com/list_6939487_federal-crack-cocaine-laws.html#ixzz2XZIjxceZ
The 100:1 ratio law had been in effect since 1986 and pundits argued the law showed prejudice against the African-American community, which included close to 80 percent of federal crack cocaine offenses. On August 3, 2010, President Obama signed a new bill to reduce the discrepancy to 18:1. The new legislation also eliminated the mandatory minimum federal sentence for possession for a first-time offender. The law originally sought to make crack cocaine and powder cocaine equal in the eyes of law, but the committee needed the resulting compromise to deliver a passing vote.

^That still sucks.
 
To buttress the mayor’s remarks, his office released a set of statistics. The numbers showed that 87% of the people stopped under stop-and-frisk in 2012 were black or Latino, and that 9% were white. That same year, more than 90% of those identified as murder suspects were blacks or Latino; just 7% were white.

How the hell is stop-and-frisk related to murder suspects in any way? Is this how most murders are solved these days?

The majority of stop-and-frisk charges involve drug possession, illegal weapons and contraband. Drug use among whites doesn't differ significantly from minorities, so that can't be responsible for this discrepancy. Going by the NYPD's own data, whites are also as likely to be carrying guns and contraband. The primary purpose of stop-and-frisk is to search for possession offenses such as these, it's not really well designed for much else, and whites aren't any less likely to be involved in the most common offenses. Much fewer stops are based on suspicion of violent crime, and like most stop-and-frisk cases it usually doesn't go anywhere.

But don't take my word for it, I never took his "logic course". He must be an expert, because I still can't wrap my head around solving murder cases like a lottery.
 
The majority of stop-and-frisk charges involve drug possession, illegal weapons and contraband. Drug use among whites doesn't differ significantly from minorities, so that can't be responsible for this discrepancy. Going by the NYPD's own data, whites are also as likely to be carrying guns and contraband.

More likely, actually.

NYPD data: Whites much more likely to be carrying drugs and guns than minorities
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/...o-be-carrying-drugs-and-guns-than-minorities/

In a detailed analysis (PDF) of publicly available New York Police Department data on crime in 2012, the New York Office of the Public Advocate revealed Wednesday that white people were much more likely to be carrying drugs and guns than minorities, despite making up a tiny fraction of individuals police subjected to so-called “stop-and-frisk” searches.

The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered a weapon in one out every 49 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 71 stops of Latinos and 93 stops of African Americans to find a weapon.

The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded contraband was one-third less than that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered contraband in one out every 43 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 57 stops of Latinos and 61 stops of African Americans to find contraband.

Despite the overall reduction in stops, the proportion involving black and Latino New Yorkers has remained unchanged. They continue to constitute 84 percent of all stops, despite comprising only 54 percent of the general population. And the innocence rates remain at the same level as 2011 – at nearly 89 percent.
 
NYC is probably the biggest market in the world for pure cocaine. Who's using this cocaine? Upper-class whites in Manhattan. The NYPD generally ignores whites when it comes to stops and searching for drugs. It's been proven that drug dealing and use among whites is equivalent and in some cases higher than blacks.

High-end prostitution with illegally trafficked European women is also a big thing in NYC. The clients are typically white businessmen with money who do this regularly with impunity. Meanwhile, vice cops in the South Bronx are ready to pounce on any guy who picks up a hooker in that area.

NYPD's own stop-and-frisk statistics turned up something surprising: on average, frisks turned up more significantly more guns on whites than blacks or Hispanics.

Conclusion: whites are disproportionately not stopped and frisked. The police turn a blind eye towards them and essentially allow them to roam free and commit the same crimes that routinely land large numbers of minorities in prisons with heavy sentences. The extreme efforts taken to catch minorities slipping have created inflated crime stats that make minorities look like the majority culprits in all manner of offenses. This allows them to justify treating them like shit. Bloomberg and Kelly are fucking assholes.
when u make claims like that, you need to provide the proof
 
And these two new laws are gonna make NYC less safe

Of course all these mayor hopefuls are gonna be against - we are in the middle of an election

Let's see how quick they reverse course if they are mayor and the crime rate increases
 
Schattenjäger;67027746 said:
when u make claims like that, you need to provide the proof

I'm not making claims. These are facts.

http://advocate.nyc.gov/sites/advocate.nyc.gov/files/DeBlasioStopFriskReform.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1595586431/?tag=neogaf0e-20

The book above in particular has a wealth of info on the crime frequency and patterns of whites being identical or worse to blacks.

Schattenjäger;67028626 said:
And these two new laws are gonna make NYC less safe

Of course all these mayor hopefuls are gonna be against - we are in the middle of an election

Let's see how quick they reverse course if they are mayor and the crime rate increases

Are you fucking kidding me? Your turn. Back up your idiotic claims.
 
Schattenjäger;67028626 said:
And these two new laws are gonna make NYC less safe

There is documented proof that stop and frisk doesn't work in the least bit, and has not made NYC safer.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/study-finds-stop-and-frisk-yields-few-guns.html
A Columbia professor testifying in the ongoing trial over the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program said that by his count in a study of 4.4 million street stops, the tactic led to just 5,940 guns seized. That's one for every thousand people stopped between 2004 and 2012, according to the New York Daily News. "The NYPD hit rate is far less than what you would achieve by chance," Professor Jeffrey Fagan said in court.

http://www.nyclu.org/node/1598
No research has ever proven the effectiveness of New York City’s stop-and-frisk regime, and the small number of arrests, summonses, and guns recovered demonstrates that the practice is ineffective. Crime data also do not support the claim that New York City is safer because of the practice. While violent crimes fell 29 percent in New York City from 2001 to 2010, other large cities experienced larger violent crime declines without relying on stop and frisk abuses: 59 percent in Los Angeles, 56 percent in New Orleans, 49 percent in Dallas, and 37 percent in Baltimore.


Evidence suggests improved medical care, not aggressive police searches, has led to New York's reduced murder rate
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...omberg-is-wrong-about-stop-and-frisk-20130522
Doctors, nurses, EMTs and ambulance drivers have been getting better at bringing wounded people back from the brink.
...
"In interpreting the meaning of homicide, people forget everything they know," says Harris, a professor at UMass-Amherst. "They don't think about the availability of high-quality emergency medical care, or the vast improvements since World War II in such care.
...
More recent studies confirm that in the past decade, advances in trauma care remained a driving force behind falling murder rates. A 2012 Wall Street Journal investigation showed that between 2001 and 2011, nationally, the number of people who had been shot and wounded severely enough to require a hospital stay rose almost 50 percent. Yet over the same period, the national death rate from shootings declined
...
Another factor driving down homicide rates across the U.S. is the proliferation of trauma centers. Today, New York City boasts 16 Level 1 trauma centers, including one devoted to pediatric care. (In comparison, all 9.9 million residents of Los Angeles County have access to only five Level 1 trauma centers, plus several more Level 2 centers.)
...
It's no surprise that Bloomberg has turned to the homicide rate in his efforts to defend stop-and-frisk. It's one of the most emotional statistics available. But the fact remains that stop-and-frisk has in no demonstrable way contributed to the city's reduced homicide rate.
 
^^^Gun shot victims have also radically decreased. The homicide fall isn't just due to better medical care.

If you were to put a gun to my head, I would say the reason why NYC has had a bigger decrease in crime in comparison to most cities is due to broken windows theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom