Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Federal Judge Rules NYC "Stop and Frisk" Violated Rights

Unknown Lamer posted 1 year,20 days | from the what-fourth-amendment dept.

United States 308

In a mixed ruling for Fourth Amendment rights, a federal judge today ruled that NYC's Stop-and-Frisk program violated constitutional rights due to disproportionately targeting minorities. However, despite the program being unconstitutional in its current form, it will not stop. From the New York Times: " Judge Scheindlin also ordered a number of other remedies, including a pilot program in which officers in at least five precincts across the city will wear body-worn cameras in an effort to record street encounters. She also ordered a 'joint remedial process' — in essence, a series of community meetings — to solicit public input on how to reform stop-and-frisk. ... The Supreme Court had long ago ruled that stop-and-frisks were constitutionally permissible under certain conditions, and Judge Scheindlin stressed that she was 'not ordering an end to the practice.' But she said that changes were needed to ensure that the street stops were carried out in a manner that “protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection.' ... The judge found that the New York police were too quick to deem as suspicious behavior that was perfectly innocent, in effect watering down the legal standard required for a stop. " The ruling itself (PDF). Bloomberg is furious about the decision, and the city, naturally, intends to appeal.

cancel ×

308 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bloomberg, I have a great PR idea for you! (4, Interesting)

Derekloffin (741455) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547191)

Just have a directive that all city officials will be frisked at least once randomly each day. I'm sure once people see their public officials undergoing the same unwarranted searches they will be perfectly fine with it... assuming the public official don't quit first.

Re:Bloomberg, I have a great PR idea for you! (4, Funny)

Bob_Who (926234) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547501)

We have a saying in the SF Bay Area:

Two wrongs don't make a right...

but three rights make a left

Re:Bloomberg, I have a great PR idea for you! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547571)

Hey sailor, that is not what we say in SF.

Re:Bloomberg, I have a great PR idea for you! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547505)

You made a good joke and all but in all seriousness. No man is above the law?
I'm a New Yorker and live in Manhattan for many many years. I'm white some what preppy, and a pot head.

I've accidentally blown pot in a cops face before walking around a corner on the way home! They've seen me buy it on the streets when I was a kid and you name the kind of trouble it would look like you were in I've been seen standing next to! (I've changed ;) ).

All I've ever been given is a stern stare.
I know many black people and even some gay people who've been actually searched for doing nothing and bad things happen to them for having harmless things on them that should not be illegal.

It is not fair or just on many levels.

Re:Bloomberg, I have a great PR idea for you! (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547831)

Just have a directive that all city officials will be frisked at least once randomly each day.

Well, if the idea is that you should stop and frisk the people who are most likely to be committing crimes, then at least in Chicago, you would absolutely justified in stopping and frisking every city official.

I seem to recall that a Chicago city official is something like 17 times more likely to be convicted of a felony than the average Chicagoan. That exceeds any racial or ethnic basis for crime statistics by a wide margin. That's even greater than the likelihood that the perpetrator of a violent crime will be a man instead of a woman.

Yes, that's a very good idea to start profiling city officials.

Re:Bloomberg, I have a great PR idea for you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547911)

dont forget to make him piss in a cup after every meeting

What's really sad (5, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547973)

What's really sad about this is that the act of frisking anyone without any fact-based suspicion is not considered a violation of the constitution. It's only the racial bias in the ways the stops were performed that makes it illegal.

I don't understand (3, Insightful)

xevioso (598654) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547193)

I've always wondered how something can be racist if it is true. I don't know what the percentages in NYC are of people who commit crimes in certain areas and what races those folks tend to be, but if 70% of the crimes in an area are committed by folks of a certain race, whatever that race may be, why does it not make sense to focus your suspicions while policing on people of that race?

Re:I don't understand (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547255)

Clearly the other races needs to be more criminal to be less racist? Or something.
Wait... That might be a racist comment. Unless the "criminal race" are white people, then anything goes. :D

Re: I don't understand (4, Insightful)

SpottedKuh (855161) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547275)

Because focusing your suspicions on someone based on their socio-economic conditions (wealth, race, family, friends, etc.) as they relate to a specific crime is a very, very different matter from *detaining* someone based on those criteria.

Re: I don't understand (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547919)

So I wondered what the actual statistics where the other day and here's the lose results of what I found, it took all of like 5 minutes of googling to find it, so basically anyone with a strong opinion on the subject against it is being intellectually dishonest.

BUT!
Firstly, the density and locations of stop and frisk (properly termed terry frisks after ohio v terry, a SCOTUS case that made this legal) fairly accurately map NYCs violent crime locations, particularly their homicides. The same places you're most likely to be terry frisked are also the places where you're most likely to be shot (as guns account for the majority of homicides there). Moreover, statistically speaking, sans grand larceny where the victim is most likely to be white, if you're a victim of basically any crime in NYC, you're probably black, or potentially hispanic. This holds especially true with homicide et cetera, with greater than 50% of the victims being black IIRC. Furthermore, if you're the victim of such a crime, your attacker is generally black.. or hispanic. With blacks making up 61% of the perpetrators of homicides from 2003 to 2011.

  So, stop and frisk occurs largely where the crimes, particularly homicides occur. The target and the perpetrator are statistically black or hispanic. So yes, if you don't consider what legitimate purposes the police might have, it could seem racist. However, once you look at the data, you're pretty much forced to recognize why they seem 'targeted'

Left is crime rates, darker is more crime. Right is stop and frisk data, notice the correlation:
http://i.imgur.com/Dztosey.jpg

The same thing, but looking up towards harlem and the upper east side and such, where we see again the pattern of violent crime and incidence of stop and frisk occurs:
http://i.imgur.com/nJ6K7z9.png

Here we have murders plotted out 2003-2011 in NYC by race, blue dots are black perpetrators and gold are hispanic. Again cross-reference this with the stop and frisk data and you'll find the pattern again holds:
http://i.imgur.com/lpaYmPU.png

That isnt to say that NYPD isn't biased however, its just not against blacks and hispanics, its against gays. We find that the terry stop data when cross-referenced shows pretty clearly that the places with high volumes of violent crimes, particularly homicides, have high terry stop counts as well, UNLESS you're in an area that also shares a high volume of homosexuality, then the volume of stop and frisks drops:
http://i.imgur.com/gqmDI3m.png

So yeah, reality shows a pretty objective picture, its just that people dont want the truth, they want to show that cops and the government are racist institutions as justifications for doing whatever it is people want to do.

Re:I don't understand (3, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547283)

The vast majority of violent crimes are males. Please submit for your daily frisking, male scum.

Re:I don't understand (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547317)

I think vast majority of people questioned or stopped for violent crimes are also male. Are you insinuating that that shouldn't be the case?

Re:I don't understand (2)

cdrudge (68377) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547421)

No. But where they stopped because they are actually suspected of a crime? Or were they stopped because they are male and obviously are guilty of SOME crime, they just aren't sure what yet.

Re:I don't understand (2)

thaylin (555395) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547435)

He is insinuating that statistically the poster is probably male, and as such should be stopped and frisked according to his own arguments.

Re:I don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547899)

Are you insinuating that that shouldn't be the case?

Maybe he wants to invest in YouTube etc and companies that would profit from increased riots. Lawyers all over town would be drooling at the prospects. "Did your MAMA teach you to finger pussy like that?" Of course the "was afraid to speak up" ones will get bigger settlements.
The 4th and 5th Amendments were intended to stop the possibility of things like fishing expeditions and witch hunts to occur, which basically is all these kinds of unconstitutional laws are. How many times in how many states have driver's license, insurance checks, seat belt checks etc been declared unconstitutional only to have a new law on the books allowing them to stop and harass people driving, most people walk or take public transportation in NYC, so the "Your papers please" stops + searches + other harassment are no great surprise but unconstitional none the less. Anonymous travel used to be an acknowledged right and even asking for someone's name improperly was a great offense and grounds for a duel. You offererd your own, a response was not required, not even as part of a nice response. Even offering your name, in some respects, could be considered a challenge.

Re:I don't understand (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547355)

The vast majority of prostitutes are female. Please submit to your doctor for intro-vaginal camera implantation, female scum.

Re:I don't understand (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547461)

Some of us could use some more action.

Re:I don't understand (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547495)

It is also well known that those that think about crime a lot commit the most crimes.

I think we should start frisking police officers and politicians.

Re:I don't understand (4, Interesting)

nextekcarl (1402899) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547809)

We have so many laws I wouldn't be surprised if most crime was actually *accidental*.

"I'm sorry, your honor, I had no idea that was illegal." should be a valid defense against some laws these days.

Re:I don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547961)

They are moving to the school system of if you dont desrve the punishment for this , then you did for something you got away with becuase a 100% of citazens are potential perps.

Re:I don't understand (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547289)

Self-fulfilling prophecy for one thing. If cops believe the majority of crimes are committed by cubans, and spend 90% of their time in cuban neighborhoods frisking cuban immigrants then 90% of their arrests will be cubans. This will serve as a confirmation bias to further harass cubans, because 90% of criminals are cubans.

Re:I don't understand (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547407)

Not to mention the negative effects that such behaviour would have on the cuban areas and on the mentality of the people living in them, which then makes it more likely that they will live up to the stereotype that has been formed of them.

Think about it... black people are -no- different to us in any way except their appearance. The number of people that escape that trap and become highly successful proves it. So what's different? The people that are like that are like that for no reason other than they have grown up believing that is the slot in which they are placed.

Plus there are plenty of equivalents in every other population group... but the ones that look like you blend into the crowd while those that look different stand out. Therefore you ignore the first and focus on the latter, falsely believing only the latter exist.

Re: I don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44548061)

Well. Fucking. Said.

Your hood pass is stamped and valid.

Re:I don't understand (5, Insightful)

VinylRecords (1292374) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547605)

That doesn't really work with murder and gang violence. You can't hide gunshots and dead bodies from society. You can massage arrest stats and crime stats for drugs, gambling, prostitution, and even burglaries and auto-theft. Let a few prostitutes go because it's not worth the hassle. Knock down some felony thefts into petty larceny.

Ever seen an arrest sheet for a kid who fires at police with a gun? Kids in gangs have huge arrest sheets. Dozens of violent arrests but all knocked down to minor crimes. It hides the stats and makes NYC look safer. Then these kids get out into the streets and eventually are killed by police after a few robberies, murders, and rapes. All the gang violence by kids like Shaaliver Douse and Kimani Gray are hidden from society until it is too late.

But you can't realistically turn a murder into something else unless you really stretch the truth. You can't say that a dead body filled with bullets was a suicide or a hunting accident in NYC. So these magic fake stats that the police use rarely apply to murder. A body is a body. We are seeing this with the Ft. Hood mass shooting. Obama refuses to call it terrorism because it counts negatively towards his anti-terror stats. So he classifies that as 'workplace violence' when an admitted terrorist is firing into crowds of people screaming 'Allah Akbar'.

The reason why police profile certain races, certain age groups, certain dress types, and other attributes and behaviors, is that those help them narrow down the likely perpetrator of a gang crime. Gang violence in NYC, LA, Detroit, Chicago, is what causes the majority of street murders. Stop and Frisk was meant to profile gang members and then allow police to search them for weapons. It's solved a considerable number of murders. And prevented a considerable number of murders.

The majority of murders solved and prevented by Stop and Frisk have been of black victims. Because black on black crime is almost an epidemic in large urban areas in the United States.

Re:I don't understand (4, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547719)

You can't say that a dead body filled with bullets was a suicide or a hunting accident in NYC.

Sure you can:
Dick Cheney was visiting the city.

-

Re:I don't understand (3, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547735)

And prevented a considerable number of murders.

Citation?

Re:I don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44548015)

They frisked the cops on the way out of the precinct house and took their guns away from them

Re:I don't understand (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547767)

The majority of murders solved and prevented by Stop and Frisk have been of black victims.

Is there any evidence that Stop and Frisk actually prevented or solved any crimes? I understand that 92% of searches were total misses, which means 8% have hit "something". But somehow I doubt a lot of them were fleeing murderers and not people with unregistered guns or with pot.

Re:I don't understand (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547837)

Stop and Frisk was meant to profile gang members and then allow police to search them for weapons. It's solved a considerable number of murders. And prevented a considerable number of murders.

Even if the TSA worked, that wouldn't make me believe that violating the constitution is okay. I believe freedom is far more important than safety.

Re:I don't understand (2, Insightful)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547887)

Gang violence in NYC, LA, Detroit, Chicago, is what causes the majority of street murders. Stop and Frisk was meant to profile gang members and then allow police to search them for weapons. It's solved a considerable number of murders. And prevented a considerable number of murders.

The majority of murders solved and prevented by Stop and Frisk have been of black victims. Because black on black crime is almost an epidemic in large urban areas in the United States.

All of which is rooted in rampant poverty. But, by all means, let's continue playing cowboys and indians because it's a hell of a lot more fun than actually fixing the underlying problem.

Re:I don't understand (2)

mc6809e (214243) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547645)

Self-fulfilling prophecy for one thing. If cops believe the majority of crimes are committed by cubans, and spend 90% of their time in cuban neighborhoods frisking cuban immigrants then 90% of their arrests will be cubans. This will serve as a confirmation bias to further harass cubans, because 90% of criminals are cubans.

In other words, non-Cubans get a pass and their crimes remain invisible, right?

That might work for some crimes, but not for those with obvious victims and villains. Murders, for example, can't often be made to disappear through lack of enforcement and followup.

Re:I don't understand (1)

Derekloffin (741455) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547705)

That depends. Several things play into crimes that are even difficult to conceal. Just because we know Joe was murdered doesn't mean we find his killer. Just because we find Joe's killer doesn't mean we can get a conviction. Even if you can get a conviction doesn't mean the crime is punished in the same way. Add to that that in the long term, a bias in enforcement can cause behavior shifts in the populous and that further complicates the matter.

Re:I don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547293)

If you only ignore the 4th amendment rights of blacks and Hispanics, don't you think that might skew the crime statistics? So it becomes self re-enforcing. Not to mention the opportunity for the police to plant evidence or make claims of "resisting arrest."

Re:I don't understand (1)

Microlith (54737) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547305)

Because it's attacking a stereotype and completely disregards the civil rights of the people you search. The police can't possibly have reasonable suspicion that every black person in NYC is a potential criminal. It's the same bullshit that the TSA uses to search/scan everyone who comes through, and it's broken there as well.

Re:I don't understand (1)

cdrudge (68377) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547311)

I presume you are not in a race where you are suspected and targeted for increased frisking not because you actually look suspicious, or because you fit the description of someone who was at the scene of a crime, but just because the color of your skin.

Re:I don't understand (1)

pirix (853140) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547323)

Percentages aren't people. If someone commits a crime and then says that to say they did it is racist - that's ridiculous. If however someone assumes that a person is probably a criminal because of the color of their skin, that's racism. Do you not see the difference? Imagine spending your entire life being hassled by cops because people who look like you are statistically more likely to commit crimes.

Re:I don't understand (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547463)

Percentages aren't people. If someone commits a crime and then says that to say they did it is racist - that's ridiculous.

Ridiculous, but happens all the time, with the full vociferous support of their community and leaders, both locally and nationally.

If however someone assumes that a person is probably a criminal because of the color of their skin, that's racism.

Sorry, but no it isn't.

Do you not see the difference? Imagine spending your entire life being hassled by cops because people who look like you are statistically more likely to commit crimes.

Re:I don't understand (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547575)

If however someone assumes that a person is probably a criminal because of the color of their skin, that's racism.

Sorry, but no it isn't.

Actually, that's kind of the definition of racism. You can argue about whether it's justifiable racism, but it is, by definition, racism.

Re:I don't understand (3, Interesting)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547619)

No, it isn't. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another. Racism isn't the belief that a large number of members of a particular racial group in one country in the world has an over-proportionate chance of being a criminal.

Hint, even black girls get nervous when black men follow them at night. That isn't racism.

I'm not saying it is fair, or right, or reasonable. But I am saying it isn't racism.

Re:I don't understand (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547731)

Even Jesse Jackson admitted to getting nervous when meeting young black men alone on city streets.

It might be racism, but given the demographics of crime in the USA, it is rational.

Re:I don't understand (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547339)

From the article:

"During police stops, she found, blacks and Hispanics "were more likely to be subjected to the use of force than whites, despite the fact that whites are more likely to be found with weapons or contraband."

So is it racist? Blacks and Hispanics are subject to more force, despite being less likely to carry arms/contraband. So shouldn't white people be the ones being stopped an frisked more than anyone else?

Re:I don't understand (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547771)

White people that dress like thugs usually are: 1. actual thugs or 2. in middle school. Cops can tell who is who.

Black people dress like thugs because that's their fashion. Cops can't tell who is who.

Re:I don't understand (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547359)

I've always wondered how something can be racist if it is true. I don't know what the percentages in NYC are of people who commit crimes in certain areas and what races those folks tend to be, but if 70% of the crimes in an area are committed by folks of a certain race, whatever that race may be, why does it not make sense to focus your suspicions while policing on people of that race?

The thing you have to remember is how crime statistics are compiled. If 70% of drug offenders are black, for instance, that does not mean that 70% of all people who use drugs are black. It means 70% of those who are arrested are black. If you focus the bulk of your efforts on black people because 70% of drug offenders are black, then you'll just continue to incarcerate black people while white investment bankers continue doing blow. This is what's racist about it: you're now at risk of targeting one particular race and creating a perpetual cycle of over-selection from the greater population.

Back to your original point: you're advocating profiling as a reasonable, objective mechanism for effectively stopping a type of crime. This works as a thought experiment or in a sterile academic environment. Once you get into the world, though, you really don't have a reliable method for determining the percentages of offenders outside of looking at those who are arrested, which leads your (well-intentioned) plan into a system in which certain crimes are only illegal for certain races.

Re:I don't understand (1)

watice (1347709) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547635)

I don't really think this has anything to do with race, per say. The stop & frisks are based on location of high crime areas. If the majority of people in those high crime areas are of a certain race, then the stats will reflect that those people were more likely to be stopped. The problem is that the WHOLE thing is flawed. When you're making shit up to stop & frisk everyone in a dangerous neighborhood, you begin to harass citizens who have not done anything wrong, and are in no way suspicious just to pat the numbers up. Just my $0.02 as a longtime nyc resident.

Re:I don't understand (4, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547439)

I've always wondered how something can be racist if it is true.

Because complaints of "racism" is now how you stop people from telling the truth.

13% of the U.S. population is black but they commit 50% of all murders and 55% of all robberies. But that's just the national average. In some areas it's much worse. In Chicago for example, blacks and hispanics combined are responsible for 96% of all murders. In St. Paul, Minnesota the population is 13% black but they are responsible for 70% of all crimes.

And so on, and so on . . . . . . .

When minorities stop committing a disproportionate amount of crime the police will leave them alone.

Re:I don't understand (4, Informative)

BlueStrat (756137) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547917)

I've always wondered how something can be racist if it is true.

Because complaints of "racism" is now how you stop people from telling the truth.

13% of the U.S. population is black but they commit 50% of all murders and 55% of all robberies. But that's just the national average. In some areas it's much worse. In Chicago for example, blacks and hispanics combined are responsible for 96% of all murders. In St. Paul, Minnesota the population is 13% black but they are responsible for 70% of all crimes.

And so on, and so on . . . . . . .

When minorities stop committing a disproportionate amount of crime the police will leave them alone.

1. Blacks commit violent crimes four to eight times the white rate. Hispanic commit violent crimes at approximately three times the white rate, and Asians at one half to three quarters the white rate.

2. Blacks are as much more violent than whites (four to eight times) as men are more violent than women.

3. Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence involving blacks and whites, 90 percent are committed by blacks against whites. Blacks are 50 times more likely than whites to commit individual acts of interracial violence. They are up to 250 times more likely than whites to engage in multiple-offender or group interracial violence.

4. There is more black-on-white than black-on-black violent crime. Fifty-six percent of violent crimes committed by blacks have white victims. Only two to three percent of violent crimes committed by whites have black victims.

5. Blacks are twice as likely to commit hate crimes.

*Sources

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics
----

An "inconvenient truth"?

Strat

Re:I don't understand (1)

gweihir (88907) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547445)

Economically speaking, you are right of course. Target the mitigation-measures where they have most impact. The problem is that you cause people fitting the pattern without actually doing something wrong to be targeted as well. Think of it as discrimination against minorities. For example, think of it as discrimination against non-criminals in a certain race group. That is the real problem, discrimination against certain groups because of characteristics that are not their fault. The results will be that these people are intimidated, have their personal integrity and privacy violated, while doing nothing wrong whatsoever.

On the other hand, this whole stop-and-frisk sounds very much like organized racism, and not like anything that would actually do any good with fighting crime. It is well known that cops are generally too stupid to carry this out fairly and will just fall back on their own racist ideas, invalidating the whole approach.

Re:I don't understand (1)

Belial6 (794905) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547819)

You are endorsing the kind of racism that is even worse for minorities. You see, the statement

The problem is that you cause people fitting the pattern without actually doing something wrong to be targeted as well. Think of it as discrimination against minorities. For example, think of it as discrimination against non-criminals in a certain race group. That is the real problem, discrimination against certain groups because of characteristics that are not their fault. The results will be that these people are intimidated, have their personal integrity and privacy violated, while doing nothing wrong whatsoever.

only needs to be dropped to include all of us. Believe it or not, white people DO get abused by the police as well. When a white person complains about this, they generally get the equivalent of "shut up whitey, you are the oppressor." This doesn't make things better for minorities, it shuns potential allies. Possibly more allies than in the group who is shunning them. And why do they shun these potential allies? Because of the color of their skin. Madness.

PROTIP: If a white person feels that they have the same problem you feel you have, and want to help you end the problem, take the help.

Re:I don't understand (1)

gweihir (88907) | 1 year,20 days | (#44548005)

Aehm, did you see "white"/"black", [insert-other-color-here], anywhere in my posting? No? Then maybe it was not there? And sure, dropping the most important thing I said will mangle the meaning of my posting, don't you think? Also, you seem to believe I am part of a non-white minority. Why do you think that? Is there any indication in my posting? I could just as well have talked about non-criminal white bankers (which are certainly a minority among white bankers). The whole thing is not limited to race either, except that stop-and-frisk is the variant where only superficial criteria are taken into account, and that is typically race.

You have one thing right though, expand this a bit an anybody is a target, and for many scenarios the police has become the enemy of the public.

Re:I don't understand (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547475)

Mathematically, it does make sense. But the American system is not designed to be the optimum system for incarcerating the guilty, it is designed to provide a maximum protection of rights to all citizens while making the minimum concessions necessary to keep law and order. One feature of the system is "innocent until proven guilty." And this applies to collection of evidence as well, i.e., a warrant based on some substantive reasons is required before searching my property; it can not be done as a matter of intuition and personal suspicion. You can't submit "being " on the warrant, and so you shouldn't be able to use that as the basis of pat down either.

Of course, I think the government may still be performing less-than-constitutional searches even if they are not "racially discriminating" in performing them.

Re:I don't understand (-1, Flamebait)

ph4cr (775696) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547493)

Hey - Fuck my mod points, years read, whatever! I don't want a part of any community that lets closet racists like you into the fold! For the record - 22 Year IT Veteran - White - Wife and kids - Black You? - Trying to figure out fire while gettin yur hood on.. FUCK YOU!!! Slashdot - If you support assholes like this then please delete me. i need a shower now... Oh? and race baiter? go fuck your mama... PH4CR

Re:I don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547603)

Don't let the door hit you...

Re:I don't understand (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547611)

If you censor bad speech you only drive it underground where it goes unchallenged.

If we let racists have their say then that gives the rest of us an opportunity to rebut their fallacious arguments. Letting them speak does not mean endorsing their speech.

Re:I don't understand (1)

ph4cr (775696) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547779)

Appreciate your comment. Unfortunately, the (probably, Younger) community - has never seen a tyrant regime in action! To older readers I offer my regret. All I can. I've already seen some of the comments from the new right dark. Get some Brown Shirts.It will help your mom as she promotes you from basement to EARTH! bye...to the good folks ive met on slashdot! wallmart always has sales on tissue and lotion for the politcal delicate types!

Re:I don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547653)

Don't worry, the next thread it will be ok to call people who want a smaller government (to reduce things like this) racists and idiots and your hatred will make you feel warm and fuzzy inside again.

For some reason being a liberal bigot against other people's ideas is ok here.

Re:I don't understand (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547535)

Because some people decided that it wasn't a good idea to judge a person based on his or her skin colour, sex, etc. No matter who you are, I can come up with some demographic you belong to that is more likely to do something undesirable, so that sort of profiling can be used to justify anything.

Re:I don't understand (1)

Artifakt (700173) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547641)

Like the summary said, "the New York police were too quick to deem as suspicious behavior that was perfectly innocent". So they focused their suspicions on race, and didn't focus on real suspicious behavior.
It's true the cops focused on one race.
It's true the cops didn't focus on people of other races who had indicators that tie much more strongly to crime (Or did you think the white and hispanic gangs of New York don't wear their own gang symbols or colors. The cops damned well know what these are, and acting like they don't is one of the reasons for these charges of racism. We have cops in this case claiming "I must have missed those briefings - the only ones I remember are gang X's", where X 'just happens' to be a black gang. Maybe that cop isn't racist, but if not, most of the other explanations are pretty bad too, as in 'cop sleeps through briefings on gang violence', or 'cop has very limited data storage').
It's true the cops didn't often do things like ask a suspect where they lived and then follow up with a few casual seeming questions to see if the person was really a local in that neighborhood, which something they are trained to do and is a pretty good way to spot many criminals, as most criminals learn to work outside of a neighborhood safe zone where they are well recognized. (Drug dealers are sometimes a particular exception to this, if their neighborhood is tolerant. Are the cops trying to only catch drug deal;ers and no other criminals? If so, why is any cop who is not a racist focusing on one type of crime when he isn't even assigned to that section of the force? If we grant that cop the claim that he is not a racist, we are left needing some explanation on why these cops are going to the frisk stage without using this technique and many others like it, first. Incidentally, the more violent criminals usually learn faster to do their work outside of a buffer zone - why not try harder to catch them, of all criminals?).
People who point out that crimes in "certain areas" "tend to be" of a certain race often ignore that there are very strong statistical ties to make these same race crimes (i.e. black on black, white on white, hispanic on hispanic, and even Dominican Republic descent on Dominican Republic descent or Recent Russian immigrant on Recent Russian immigrant). The numbers there are grouped much more closely than by race in general. It's true that NYC cops keep stopping and frisking blacks in the same percentages even when they have been given orders to particularly be on the lookout for a particular criminal who has knocked over three Albanian Immigrant mom and pop stores in the last month, and even when that particular high profile suspect is described as Caucasian.
       

Re:I don't understand (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547703)

I think this issue is exacerbated by drug criminalization, which results in widespread harmless violations. If you are actually trying to stop real crime, which is rarer, racial profiling will probably produce worse results, since incorrectly ruling out even one person because they are of a "low-risk" race is an unacceptable failure. Though it's possible math proves me wrong

Re:I don't understand (1)

Xeno man (1614779) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547723)

It depends on what area you are in. Did you know that a whooping 99% of all crime in Africa is committed by black people. If your in Africa, don't trust any black people. Also the vast majority of crime committed in Japan is done by Asians. I was thinking of visiting Japan but I only want to visit areas that are free of Asians.

Re:I don't understand (2)

swalve (1980968) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547741)

Because you don't know whether it's true or not until after the fact. Racism is using race as a factor in making value judgements or decisions about someone.

70% of the crimes might well be committed by one race according to the FBI statistics, but the majority of the members of that race aren't criminals. Even if it WAS true that 70% of black people, it would be unethical and immoral to treat the entire race any differently, since it subjects that other 30% to punishment for sins they haven't committed.

Re:I don't understand (2)

Jimbob The Mighty (1282418) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547787)

How are these statistics being collected? If a white person is more likely to get off with a warning, but a person of colour charged and/or convicted, wouldn't this skew the results?

Re:I don't understand (2)

Lendrick (314723) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547803)

Interestingly, when you look at the stop-and-frisk statistics, it turned out that white people were the ones most likely to be committing a crime. Clearly they need to be stopping more white people.

Re:I don't understand (1)

jrumney (197329) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547857)

It isn't racist to observe that black males are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. It is racist when you start treating black males as criminals with no other evidence other than the fact they are black.

no, for three reasons (1)

raymorris (2726007) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547873)

First, you're looking at the wrong number mathematically. The proper statistic would be "X% of black people are criminals". Remember you're trying to estimate whether or not a particular person is a criminal, not who a particular crime was committed by. because a very small number of black people or white people are criminals race is not a good indicator that a particular person is engaging in criminal behavior.

Secondly, there are behaviors that are suspicious and other evidence. In my city, for example crack dealers circle the block on bicycles in the middle of the night. If X% of crack dealers are black, approximately X% of the people circling the block in the middle of the night will be black. If you focus on the specific suspicious behavior, you'll get more accurate results AND whatever racial proportion is correct will be looked at as a side effect, without ever considering race. So mathematically, it's best to ignore race when stronger indicators are available.

Lastly, other commentors have discussed the EFFECTS of racial profiling. Harassing people on racial grounds also has negative effects.

Interestingly, your concept of "true probabilities" DOES work for solving a specific crime. If, in a certain city, the italian mob does professional hits, then when investigating a professional hit it's mathematically correct to have a look at Italian mobsters. I'll say it - if young middle eastern men are normally the ones who hijack planes, it makes sense mathematically to check which young middle eastern men are booked on the flight, AFTER you have evidence that flight is involved in a hijacking attempt

Re:I don't understand (2, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547993)

The reason is there is not a whole lot of evidence out there to suggest that race is a driving factor, as appose to other factors like education levels, environmental health, and economic opportunities that for historical reasons may also correlate with certain racial groups.

Consider: You have 1000 identical little plastic boxes. You open 200 of them and insert a little slip of paper with the word "crook" written on it. You open the others and insert a little slip of paper that says "good citizen" on it. Close up all your boxes. Put them in a larger box and shake to fully randomize. What percentage of the time will you pull out a box with a "crook" card in it?

Now replace the box you removed, and randomize again. Draw out 200 boxes, and dip them in vinyl dye turning them bright green. Replace the boxes. Would you expect to find crook cards more frequently inspecting only green boxes that simply inspecting any box?

Now suppose that you do decide to only look at green boxes or say that for every beige box you open you will be opening 10 green ones. Might it seem like most of the crook cards you discover are in green boxes? Would this be a good justification for continuing to more closely scrutinize green boxes?

Staistics (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547227)

I remember reading an article showing that based on the descriptions of those actually committing crimes, visible minorities were significantly under-represented in the people frisked. If this "Stop and Frisk" this is supposed to be random or something, it sounds like there's a bias, but based on trying to stop crime, apparently not.

Re:Staistics (1)

fermion (181285) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547677)

The justification is that darker complexioned young men tend to commit crimes and therefore they should be investigated. The justification is that when we do stop such people, crime rates fall, therefore we are stopping criminals. The counter argument is that even if such people may in fact commit crimes at an increased rate, it is not in the best interest of the country to take a group of people and deprive them of rights or privileges simply because they are part of a dangerous group.

Let look at two examples based on driving. Driving is a privileged, not a right, and therefore it should be easy to pass laws to severely reduce the death of innocent people. Three groups are arguably predominately responsible for deaths of innocent bystanders involving vehicles. One are drunk drivers, which are being dealt with as a nation. The other are the very young and the very old. We could cut the deaths caused by these dangerous drivers significantly by two simple laws. The first would restrict the driving of any minor. Right now it is restricted for a number of months, or a year, but we could easily say 1 passenger and no driving after 10, without a special waiver, for anyone under 19, with any accident resulting in a year increase.This would likely result in the deaths of families of four caused by distracted teens a few times a year, and well as a myriad of other deaths. It would likely reduce insurance of all of us.

Likewise we could demand that anyone over 70 take a full drivers exam every year. If anyone over 60 has a ticket, they have to take a full drivers exam. This would end the death of innocents shopping at farmers markets.

Why do we not make these common sense precautions that save lives? Because we do not want to infringe on the rights of the great majority of drivers who are skilled and law abiding. Just because a few show criminal negligence, we do not punish everyone.

Re:Staistics (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547855)

FYI the real danger period for young drivers is the first 1000 hours of operation. Almost the same as for new pilots (who are almost all older).

The real reason we don't put reasonable restrictions on older drivers. AARP and political expedience/cowardice. At that any cop can and will send an old driver back to DMV to retest based on something the cop sees happen.

Re:Staistics (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547801)

I remember reading an article showing that based on the descriptions of those actually committing crimes, visible minorities were significantly under-represented in the people frisked.

Seems to me the numbers I saw were about 4.4 million "stop & frisk" since Bloomberg got to be mayor (no, it didn't start with him, but the numbers I saw referred to his reign), of which 89% were "people of color".

Since New York City has more than 11% whites, it looks pretty clearly like the people being stopped were "walking while black"....

Because of race? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547271)

So if they frisk white people with the same frequency it become constitutional?
Ridiculous.
Either it's constitutional or it's not. And the way I read the fourth amendment there isn't much question it's not.

Re:Because of race? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547363)

It falls under different amendments depending on the reasoning used to justify the action. You cant fight it on the 4th due to 'safety' overriding Liberty in the modern era, but its much easier to attack on the equal protection clause.

Re:Because of race? (1)

thaylin (555395) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547459)

You are correct, it is either constitutional or not, you can have no other options. In this case it is unconstitutional, however done in another way it can be constitutional. In other words racial profiling is unconstitutional, hence why this one is unconstitutional, however *random stop and frisks are not unconstitutional, therefore they would need to stop and frisk more whites to at least pretend it is random.

Re:Because of race? (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547559)

You are correct, it is either constitutional or not, you can have no other options. In this case it is unconstitutional, however done in another way it can be constitutional. In other words racial profiling is unconstitutional, hence why this one is unconstitutional, however *random stop and frisks are not unconstitutional,

Well, there's the rub. The fourth amendment seems very clear that

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, ... against unreasonable searches and seizures....

The only debatable term there is "unreasonable". Unfortunately, the powers that be have decided that in New York City, 'stop and frisk' is reasonable. I've mentioned before on other boards that the amendment doesn't protect you against random searches, as long as the courts don't find it to be 'unreasonable'.

If this makes it to the Supreme Court, and they decide it is unreasonable on its face, then it will be over. But only then.

Re:Because of race? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547623)

The problem with the constitution is that the foundres underestimated some combination of:
1) how evil the supreme court judges would be
2) their ability to read basic English
3) their ability to use argue their rulings without using logical fallacies and unproven assumptions

Too bad they seem to be failing in all of those area.

Founders not the problem (1)

fnj (64210) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547949)

The problem with the constitution is that the foundres underestimated some combination of:
1) how evil the supreme court judges would be
2) their ability to read basic English
3) their ability to use argue their rulings without using logical fallacies and unproven assumptions
Too bad they seem to be failing in all of those area.

It would be nice to believe our problem is lack of prescience on the part of the founders, leading to a failure of the system to forestall evil, illiterate, stupid supreme court justices.

But it isn't. The problem is supreme court justices (and politicians) who see the constitution as simply a bothersome obstacle, consider that they know better what the best governing principles are for the country than a bunch of long dead white guys of European heritage. There is also an extremely large contribution to decay of rights due to corruption.

Having said that, my impulse is also to impugn the ability of the founders to foresee the mechanisms of decay, but on reflection that is not fair. No one of that era could have foreseen the astonishing loss by the people of resolution and interest in their own rights.

“A lady asked Dr. [Benjamin] Franklin 'Well Doctor what have we got; a republic or a monarchy?'. 'A republic', replied the Doctor, 'if you can keep it.'”
-- notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the constitutional convention.

Where is our Patrick Henry now?

Re:Because of race? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547601)

owever *random stop and frisks are not unconstitutional

ummm... yes, they are.

Re:Because of race? (2)

Frobnicator (565869) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547499)

Either it's constitutional or it's not. And the way I read the fourth amendment there isn't much question it's not.

I'm pretty sure that's why the judge ordered the cameras.

Several precincts around the country started wearing cameras.

When police wear cameras, complaints about civil violations go down by about 88%, overall use of force drops by about 60% [nytimes.com]

Simply knowing that their actions are being recorded is enough to make cops think twice.

Locally our police departments have cameras on them, as do various cities in Arizon, Connecticut and Texas. They were introduced in response to claims of police abuses. Cameras are cheap, the policy should be nation wide.

In my view, it should be completely mandatory. If there are claims of police abuse and the officer does not have their camera running for any reason, the officer's negligence should be an automatic win for the citizen. The video should be part of the evidence for every violation from an improper lane change to what goes on inside the police interrogation rooms. Apart from bathroom breaks and such, there are few good reasons NOT to have cops record everything they do.

Re:Because of race? (4, Insightful)

Frobnicator (565869) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547643)

Sorry for replying to my own post...

>> In my view, police-eye view cameras should be completely mandatory.

For clarification, the footage should be available to everyone as part of their own defense. If you are accused of a crime, the police must give you the footage in exactly the same way other evidence must be made available. It doesn't matter the crime, even failing to signal for a lane change, or whatever else. Along the lines of "pics or it didn't happen".

This should also include the entire transaction inside police 'interview' rooms. If they invite you inside for a little chat the entire video should be available to you and your lawyer. Many times police will coerce a 'confession' out of somebody through dubious means, the mandatory video would prevent false claims and help eliminate bad cops. Everybody wins.

Cameras are so cheap that police policy should be that all police interactions are recorded. If the cop claims he saw you do something then it should be on the glasses camera. If the video is missing from the record, the police shouldn't prosecute and juries should have a serious question of "Why did the cop not generate a recording of this? What is the cop trying to hide?"

This is different from a surveillance state. It is not "big brother watching you." It is watching big brother. As the NYT article linked to describes, when people fraudulently claim police abuse they give up after seeing the tape. On the other side, after police see their mistakes they will drop the cases because they know they'll lose in court, and become better and more honest cops.

Everybody wins.

Re:Because of race? (1)

Intropy (2009018) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547721)

In general I agree with you. But there are some privacy concerns that should be addressed. The video wouldn't be able to view anything the officer couldn't have seen, but perfect permanent storage compared with imperfect memory and the ability to automate searching through footage could be troublesome. Perhaps if you needed a warrant. It should be easy to say you saw a crime at 12:43 and then get a warrant saying you can look at the footage from around 12:43.

Re:Because of race? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44548087)

All breaks will occur in bathrooms then . the suspects arm, his teeth etc

So (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547329)

So...it has come to this...

Re:So (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547479)

RANDAAAAAAAALL!

Re:So (1)

Randall311 (866824) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547549)

RANDAAAAAAAALL!

What do you want?

Re:So (2)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547583)

oh, hi

Ridiculous (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547337)

At this point, I don't even know why we where clothes while we're out in public. Just think about how many lives could be saved if nobody could hide weapons or anything else illegal under their clothes!

I mean, I hear a lot of counters to slippery-slope being a fallacy. While that might be true, in theory, it sure seems like in practice, it is all around us, especially when it comes to rights that the culture of the day don't find as important (right to privacy and right to bear arms are the big two in NYC).

Re:Ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547555)

Well... we wear clothes because not all of us have thick coats of man-fur. Some times it gets cold, and other times we don't want to get all crispy sunburned. So, there is that.

It is about maintaining fear (5, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547391)

Stop-and-frisk has one aim: Keep certain groups in fear and make sure they do not organize or start defending themselves by strongly implying that they have no rights and that their privacy can be invaded at any time and without any reason. It is a tried and true tactics, optimized by the Nazis and in Stalinism, but created much earlier.

Re:It is about maintaining fear (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547967)

Stop and frisk indeed has one aim: to reduce crime in areas historically high in violent crime. Unlike your innuendo and speculation, I come with facts.

Firstly, the density and locations of stop and frisk (properly termed terry frisks after ohio v terry, a SCOTUS case that made this legal) fairly accurately map NYCs violent crime locations, particularly their homicides. The same places you're most likely to be terry frisked are also the places where you're most likely to be shot (as guns account for the majority of homicides there). Moreover, statistically speaking, sans grand larceny where the victim is most likely to be white, if you're a victim of basically any crime in NYC, you're probably black, or potentially hispanic. This holds especially true with homicide et cetera, with greater than 50% of the victims being black IIRC. Furthermore, if you're the victim of such a crime, your attacker is generally black.. or hispanic. With blacks making up 61% of the perpetrators of homicides from 2003 to 2011.

    So, stop and frisk occurs largely where the crimes, particularly homicides occur. The target and the perpetrator are statistically black or hispanic. So yes, if you don't consider what legitimate purposes the police might have, it could seem racist. However, once you look at the data, you're pretty much forced to recognize why they seem 'targeted'

Left is crime rates, darker is more crime. Right is stop and frisk data, notice the correlation:
http://i.imgur.com/Dztosey.jpg

The same thing, but looking up towards harlem and the upper east side and such, where we see again the pattern of violent crime and incidence of stop and frisk occurs:
http://i.imgur.com/nJ6K7z9.png

Here we have murders plotted out 2003-2011 in NYC by race, blue dots are black perpetrators and gold are hispanic. Again cross-reference this with the stop and frisk data and you'll find the pattern again holds:
http://i.imgur.com/lpaYmPU.png

That isnt to say that NYPD isn't biased however, its just not against blacks and hispanics, its against gays. We find that the terry stop data when cross-referenced shows pretty clearly that the places with high volumes of violent crimes, particularly homicides, have high terry stop counts as well, UNLESS you're in an area that also shares a high volume of homosexuality, then the volume of stop and frisks drops:
http://i.imgur.com/gqmDI3m.png

So, now that a tyrannous government and racism is obviously not the case, who are you going to blame?

Re:It is about maintaining fear (1)

amiga3D (567632) | 1 year,20 days | (#44548083)

Look at the bright side. Now the gangs can get back to killing each other without hindrance by the cops. Sounds like Win-Win to me

White collar crime included (Wall Street)? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547477)

Bloomberg and some here have justified the 4th amendment destroying policy as necessary to prevent crime, even though most of the people stopped have committed no crime and don't have a gun or drugs on them.

But since crime prevention is what he and others care most about and since the greatest concentration of wealth in the world has been lost due to Wall Street criminality will Bloomberg order his cops to visit the offices of investment bankers and wall street traders in Manhattan to stop and frisk them and search their computers to make sure they're not currently committing any crimes?

Yeah I didn't think so.

Stop and frisk only applies to minorities who don't have thousand dollar an hour attorney's on standby

Re:White collar crime included (Wall Street)? (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | 1 year,20 days | (#44548135)

Bloomberg and some here have justified the 4th amendment destroying policy as necessary to prevent crime, even though most of the people stopped have committed no crime and don't have a gun or drugs on them.

But since crime prevention is what he and others care most about and since the greatest concentration of wealth in the world has been lost due to Wall Street criminality will Bloomberg order his cops to visit the offices of investment bankers and wall street traders in Manhattan to stop and frisk them and search their computers to make sure they're not currently committing any crimes?

Yeah I didn't think so.

Stop and frisk only applies to minorities who don't have thousand dollar an hour attorney's on standby

Well put. With so many major criminals in fancy offices, why bother with petty criminals on the street. And yes, those financial criminals have in many cases violated New York State law, so it would be under the city's jurisdiction.

One other minor point: has anybody ever actually demonstrated that stop-and-harass has lowered crime? Yeah, didn't think so.

Why isn't Bloomberg in jail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547551)

Why did idiots keep electing him?

Re:Why isn't Bloomberg in jail? (2)

Intropy (2009018) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547755)

If Bloomberg is for it you should pretty much just assume it's a bad idea until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re:Why isn't Bloomberg in jail? (2)

fnj (64210) | 1 year,20 days | (#44548009)

Why did idiots keep electing him?

They do because they can. There is no IQ test or basic knowledge test or conflict of interest screening as a prerequisite for the right to vote. (Hell, parenthetically, you don't even have to be a citizen!). Are you really surprised that this pandering, megalomaniac creature is able to hood winkstupid people, ignorant people, and people dependent on government largesse?

Oops! We Violated Your Rights! (1)

Greyfox (87712) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547681)

Sorry about that. Our bad. We now return you to your regularly scheduled frisking.

There are some stats that shouldn't be overlooked. (1)

MasseKid (1294554) | 1 year,20 days | (#44547725)

"In 98.5% of the 2.3 million frisks, no weapon was found,"

Obama's Americans have a constitution??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44547773)

Wow... Who'd have thunk the US constitution mattered anymore in Obama's America.

Wonder if Jesse still feels this way (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44548085)

Jesse Jackson, as quoted in the NY Times on12/12/93, by Times columnist Bob Herbert ( who is also black):
“Jesse Jackson is traveling the country with a tough anti-crime message that he is delivering to inner city youngsters. In Chicago, he said:
‘There is nothing more painful to me at this stage of my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

Bloomberg is a busybody asshole. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44548119)

Anyone who has a shred of common sense can see that Bloomberg
likes to stick his nose it doesn't belong.

The good news is that Bloomberg has cancer and will be dead within
a year from today.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>