Lion of the Blogosphere

Good policing and the liberals who hate it

There’s an article in today’s NY Times, written by John Tierney who is probably the best reporter that they have on staff, about the tactics employed by New York City police to reduce crime.

The first thing they do is identify crime hot spots. Thos are places where crimes have occurred in the past. Then the police often show up at the hot spots, where they stop and frisk any suspicious looking people they see hanging out there. This presumably puts the fear of the law into the criminal element, and they decide to do something else that night instead of committing a crime, and maybe for the next few nights as well.

It seems like a pretty sensible policing strategy to me, but there are certain liberal types who hate this strategy, because it seems that the suspicious-looking people who hang out at the hot spots are almost all black and Hispanic, and the liberal types think it is racist to stop and frisk them.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 26, 2013 at 11:12 AM

22 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Hasn’t it been well documented that the racial makeup of stop and frisks matches the racial makeup of descriptions given by crime victims? My husband and I have both been mugged. The miscreants who came after me were black as were those who attacked him. But both muggings happened in what are generally considered to be nice, safe areas of the city.

    When I was in college, at a liberal institution in the city, a non-student managed to sneak into a library, stealing bookbags and purses. I remember a white girl whose bag had been stolen being asked the race of the thief (by the hispanic, female security guard) and she sighed with great sadness and said, with obvious reluctance, “He was black.”


    January 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM

  2. I think the main question is whether stop and frisk violates the 4th amendment:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Courts have ruled that under some circumstances police do not need warrants, but is this one of those cases? Does looking suspicious in a crime hot spot constitute probably cause?

    Stop and frisk may be an effective police tactic to reduce crime, but that does not make it legal. Police could also search every house within 10 blocks of a crime hot spot for guns and drugs. That might be effective too, but it clearly violates the 4th amendment and probably the 2nd amendment too.


    January 26, 2013 at 12:19 PM

    • Is it better to have hundreds of more murders and tens of thousands of more muggings each year because we are worried about the “rights” of people who really shouldn’t be hanging out at a hot spot and looking suspicious in the first place?

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 26, 2013 at 12:39 PM

    • Stop and frisk is constitutional: Terry v Ohio. The only legal issue is whether the police stopping blacks (and hispanics) out of proportion to their numbers in the general population is somehow indicative of racial discrimination. If Islandmommy’s first sentence is true, then it’s obviously not indicative of racial discrimination.


      January 26, 2013 at 1:32 PM

      • Terry v Ohio allows stop and frisk without probable cause when a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous. In the Terry v Ohio case a police officer observed several men walking to a store window, pausing to stare into the window, then walking back to a corner and talking to each other. They did this over and over at least 5 or 6 times. The police officer thought the two men were casing the store for a robbery. He stopped and frisked them and found 2 illegal concealed hand guns.

        The question is what standards do the NYC police use to decide someone is suspicious? Being black or Hispanic does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion required by Terry v Ohio.


        January 26, 2013 at 11:51 PM

    • Oh, jeez. The law is what a diversity judge says it is. End of story.


      January 26, 2013 at 1:46 PM

    • Ever notice how libs love to bring up if something infringes the constitution if it only serves their needs? The libs have been twisting the 14th amendment to fit whatever need they have at the moment (except for unborn children), and progressives have spent the last month howling for laws that would infringe on the 2nd amendment.

      Humpty Dumpty mindset – The constitution is applicable and important when a progressive says so.


      January 26, 2013 at 2:42 PM

  3. Lion, you have to be careful here in criticizing the well-meaning concerns of the ruling elite. Being labeled a racist is the worst thing in the world. It can cause people to be ostracized from polite society, or even make them move from a successful blog just to erase any evidence of thoughtcrime.

    forever naive

    January 26, 2013 at 12:36 PM

  4. This Good Policing IS
    made good by
    the police eliminating all coloreds from Manhattan, hence, the elimination of most crime.
    Liberals like to talk a good game about “oppression” whilst daintily sipping $14 Lattte-chinos and nibbling on $9 muffins.

    If they liked their coloreds so much, you’d see them.
    Typical Learjet Liberal hypocrisy.

    The issue mustn’t be diminished by discussing if liberals are dangerous phonies.


    January 26, 2013 at 1:57 PM

  5. The total elimination of our city’s stop and frisk policy would have at least one positive effect: a significant increase in race realism amongst NYC’s elite. More mugged hipster transplants is a good thing in my book.


    January 26, 2013 at 2:24 PM

    • You don’t think they realize that most of the violent crime is committed by members of one or two races?

      I think you are a little slow if you think so.

      Their problem is to avoid appearing racist while trying to make NYC a destination for high earning capacity individuals, so they say one thing while trying to get members of those races out of NYC.

      The fourth doorman of the apocalypse

      January 27, 2013 at 8:31 AM

  6. One thing about the NYPD is that it is grotesquely overstaffed. The city could re-engineer half of the department, and New York would still have more cops per capita than Los Angeles. And I ***highly*** doubt crime would rise.



    January 26, 2013 at 2:33 PM

    • Why fix it if it’s not broken? Especially when cops could cause problems for a mayor who tried?


      January 26, 2013 at 7:43 PM

    • The question is, how much of that overstaffing is (useful) cops on the street, and how much is (useless) blacks and women doing admin jobs at HQ? Get rid of the latter and you would cut costs without increasing crime, but of course you can’t do that for political reasons.


      January 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM

  7. There’s a fantastic in-depth treatment of this whole issue and practice by Heather McDonald right now at City Journal. Main takeaway: decent blacks LOVE having the NYPD patrolling the hallways of the projects and jacking the bangers. They’re pissed that upper crust libs like the Shearman & Sterling firm have shut it down.

    mel belli

    January 26, 2013 at 3:31 PM

  8. Read Heather Macdonald (over at City Journal, among other places) to learn about the NY liberal crusade to prevent the police from frisking or even speaking to (suspected) criminals of color even when summoned by an apartment building owner reporting actual trespass by one or more thugs!

    Real liberals are concerned with appearances at the front end, not the results at the back end or what happens out of sight in the middle. That is why their take on policing is the same as their take on college admissions. Liberals don’t care if suspects of color go on to complete violent crimes and (later) end up in prison, so long as the police refrain from interrogating suspects of color while they’re still on the street. Just as liberals don’t care whether unqualified students of color flunk out of highly-competitive colleges and end up working in a shoestore, so long as colleges refrain from using SAT scores to direct applicants of color toward the schools where they are most likely to succeed (see Richard Sanders “mismatch” thesis).

    Anticipating and averting trouble is a “high future orientation” activity, therefore racist.


    January 26, 2013 at 3:39 PM

  9. There’s now a Hispanic serial mugger in East Harlem, who has been attacking Asians, mostly women and older men. One possibility is that he’s targeting Asians because they tend to carry more cash than people of other races.
    It would be extremely funny if the next Asian he attacks turns out to be a 10th-degree Shaolin kung fu master 🙂



    January 26, 2013 at 7:48 PM

    • Chinese people living in the barrio. The times they are a changing.


      January 26, 2013 at 9:08 PM

  10. It’s funny how you people trust cops, oh wait, it’s not:
    Item #52,856

    Liberals are generally smarter than conservatives which is why we know to take the notion of hero cop with a good bit of salt

    Maybe all of you are related to cops and as a result get preferential treatment? I happen to love the idea that cops are pissed off that outsiders are cutting in on their racket:

    All this is just NY but it’s the same everywhere else, simply put police officers are not good people by and large, they’re basically thugs, if you keep a short leash on them they’ll do some good things in spite of themselves.

    Really, it’s time to grow up and face the world like a man, it is foolish to give authority too much power and cowardly to not keep them in check.


    January 26, 2013 at 10:01 PM

    • I don’t think liberals are smarter. I do happen to agree with you on the issue of the police, however. Most of them are not folks you’d want as neighbors.


      January 26, 2013 at 10:44 PM

    • Um.. one only has to look at the names to realize that any actual planting of evidence of criminality was simply a public service that justified the arrest of persons displaying ample evidence of antisocial activity.

      Paul Rayn

      February 8, 2013 at 4:05 AM

  11. So if we don’t put efforts into policing “ethnic” neighborhoods, we are wrong for ignoring the issue of crime in those communities (such as when Chicagoans claim the police are essentially allowing the gangs to kill each other). If we do, however, we are then guilty of the twin sin of discriminatory profiling. What a dilemma!


    January 27, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: