Lion of the Blogosphere

FBI director says rise in crime …

In the NY Times today:

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Friday that the additional scrutiny and criticism of police officers in the wake of highly publicized episodes of police brutality may have led to an increase in violent crime in some cities as officers have become less aggressive.

With his remarks, Mr. Comey lent the prestige of the F.B.I., the nation’s most prominent law enforcement agency, to a theory that is far from settled: that the increased attention on the police has made officers less aggressive and emboldened criminals.

Exactly what I’ve been saying.

I’ve also written a lot about one particular type of aggressive police behavior, stop-and-frisk. I believe that put the fear of the law into the people they stopped and frisk, and the abolishment of that policy has emboldened the criminal element who are now more likely to carry handguns.

Also, a few days ago, there was another NY Times article about the soaring murder rate in Baltimore, where the police have especially backed down from being aggressive after the murder prosecution of police officers for just doing their job.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

October 24, 2015 at 8:29 AM

Posted in Crime

25 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Never ceases to amazed me how the liberal media can’t help reporting the truth even when they put their left-wing spin on it. To the Times, police officers fighting crime is “aggression.”


    October 24, 2015 at 10:20 AM

  2. The state of Vermont and the city of Baltimore have almost exactly the same population – around 623,000. Last year Vermont had 10 murders. So far this year Baltimore has had 270, according to the NYT. Ever wonder why?

    Black Death

    October 24, 2015 at 11:33 AM

    • Baltimore has more stuff to steal than Vermont. And people are more crowded together, making it easier to steal.


      October 24, 2015 at 2:48 PM

      • “Baltimore has more stuff to steal than Vermont.”



        October 24, 2015 at 9:43 PM

      • NYC has more stuff to steal than New Jersey. I get your point!


        October 25, 2015 at 3:37 PM

    • There’s a better comparison because sjw’s will say you can’t compare a whole state that’s rural and low pop density to a city.

      Portland vs. Baltimore. both roughly 600k in population. both not exactly economically vibrant.both spawned popular tv shows.both are port cities (though Baltimore is definitely a much bigger port).

      Baltimore actually has world class higher educational and cultural institutions and a better job base and better access to tons of jobs.

      Portland however has microscopic violent crime compared to Baltimore.


      October 24, 2015 at 3:52 PM

      • I’m sure that Baltimore is more densely urban, while most of the “city” of Portland is really suburban.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 24, 2015 at 9:51 PM

      • You’d better check that. Portland is in the forefront of the build up not out movement and severely restricts low density development. Go over to antiplanner and read his archives:

        bob sykes

        October 25, 2015 at 8:00 AM

    • more black people, more murder.

      no, better:

      more broken homes, more murder.

      no, better:

      more fathers abandoning their sons and daughters, more murder.


      October 24, 2015 at 11:37 PM

    • There are cities with nothing in common where this is happening,” said Coney.


      October 25, 2015 at 6:52 AM


      There are cities with nothing in common where this is happening,” said Comey,


      October 25, 2015 at 6:55 AM

  3. This is exactly what the Government wants. They think that if crime goes up they can tighten the screws again and take away more rights like they did with the Patriot Act after 9/11. They also want to take away your guns and they think that if enough criminals and terrorists are killing people you’ll disarm. Its sort of pathetic to see how stupid the Government is. They think people are going to trust them to protect them after causing these problems in the first place by encouraging riots and letting terrorists into the country. This is what you get with Democracy. People should not be allowed to vote unless they have a stake in the outcome, and a good enough understanding of the law and government to make an informed choice. we have leaders picked like American Idol. Prepackaged media stars who give small interviews and then get voted on based on personality and likeability. Trump is already a media star, so he’s way ahead. At this point he’s also the best candidate because he’s the only one who ever actually managed anything!

    Joshua Sinistar

    October 24, 2015 at 1:42 PM

    • It’s what you get with representative democracy. If the people were allowed to vote directly on every issue with no overriding the results via the courts or international treaties, things would be far different.


      October 25, 2015 at 9:04 AM

  4. The Fourth Amendment says:

    “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.”

    This amendment is rooted in English law. I think the authors of this understood that police could be more effective in catching criminals if they were allowed to search anywhere they wanted without warrants, but they decided to impose these limits on law enforcement searches, requiring warrants issued by a judge with probably cause.

    The stop-and-frisk practice is based on a Terry Stop (Terry v Ohio 1968). The Supreme court ruled that police may stop and frisk persons on the street if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

    The problem with stop-and-frisk is the definition of “reasonable suspicion”. Reasonable suspicion is a lower threshold than probably cause, but it is not clearly defined. Federal judges have ruled that as applied in NYC the stop-and-frisk policy was a violation of the 4th Amendment although I think the case is still being appealed.

    In Baltimore Police had effectively implemented a curfew in some neighborhoods by arresting anyone who was on the street late at night. The arrests were frequently on ridiculous charges. When they got to the police station, people were offered the choice of having charges dropped and being allowed to go home if they signed an agreement not to sue the city. Otherwise they had to spend the night in jail and go to court the next day, where the charges were usually dropped.

    These kind of tactics can be effective in reducing crime, but that is not the question. Many of these practices violate the constitution and the bill of rights. That was a trade off our founders made when they wrote the constitution and the bill of rights. They understood that these restrictions made policing more difficult. We need to get back to good police practices that do not violate the constitution.


    October 24, 2015 at 2:03 PM

    • The constitution also bars the United States from involving itself in ‘domestic violence’ in a state without a request from the Legislature of that state, but that didn’t stop Lincoln. The constitution is, at best, a weak reference point in an environment dominated by moral posturing and only has the significance the population chooses to give it. From what I can tell the population uses as guidance for such exercises media driven claims of social justice and media hyped outrage. All one needs to amend the constitution is to come up with a sufficiently melodramatic moral claim (like ending slavery, gay marriage or maybe even stopping crime), contrive a sufficiently Foucaultian re-definition of terms and presto, constitution changed.


      October 24, 2015 at 5:53 PM

    • Well put.

      E. Rekshun

      October 24, 2015 at 7:14 PM

    • I came here to post this, but you did it better. It doesn’t matter if stop and frisk is effective; if it’s legal then the Fourth Amendment has no meaning.


      October 24, 2015 at 7:47 PM

    • “That was a trade off our founders made when they wrote the constitution and the bill of rights. They understood that these restrictions made policing more difficult. We need to get back to good police practices that do not violate the constitution.”

      Ugh, one of these “Constitution! Yearggh!” types. Times change, Spanky, times change. We don’t live in a monochromatic, unified, high trust society any more. And maybe you never lived in a rotten, crime ridden area, but I have. And let me tell ya, I’m happy to give up some of my precious “liberty” to walk the streets safely and to not constantly worry that some brute with a gun is breaking into my house.

      But I’ll tell ya what. We can go back to your Constitutional whatevers, if at the same time we can go back to what they also had when the Constitution was written, namely public executions for all sorts of crimes like burglary, robbery, arson, manslaughter, murder, maiming, sodomy, buggery, rape, infanticide, and treason.

      You give me all that, and I’ll say we can get rid of stop and frisk. Deal?


      October 24, 2015 at 9:43 PM

    • Yes, but the Fourth Amendment originally only applied to the federal government, and the wise-beyond-words founders never imagined such rights could be invoked by the blacks.


      October 25, 2015 at 2:17 AM

  5. “A high risk of punishment reduces crime. It just does.” — James Q. Wilson


    October 24, 2015 at 2:26 PM

  6. Durn Finnish-Americans at it again…


    October 24, 2015 at 3:26 PM

  7. The FBI Director’s comments are just the lead in for more funding for law enforcement personnel, training, equipment, and specialized joint-interagency task forces to fight the growing crime problem. Every couple of years it’s a new crime-fighting initiative – last one was “human trafficking.”

    E. Rekshun

    October 24, 2015 at 7:11 PM

  8. The NYT always uses this kind of isolated demand for rigour. Any theory they don’t like is suspect, unproven etc. in contrast assertions they agree with are always left unquestioned. Is it really too much to expect that some consistent level of objectivity be applied at what is allegedly the best newspaper in the US.


    October 24, 2015 at 8:17 PM

  9. I do live in a “rotted crime ridden area” and would rather have a higher crime rate and the right to self defense, than to have young people’s lives shredded by the criminal justice system.

    There are externalities to this too. My friend’s brother had to get a “state ID” at age 14 before he could even legally drive, because the cops started bothering him for simply being a tall, black dude.

    The real solution for this is to bring back trade schools, because not all children are college material and not everyone wants to wait until age 21 to start a family. If they’re just told “college or bust” or to sit through algebra and then take out a $30,000 loan for a tertiary level school, they’re going to act out.

    But a trade school at the high school level can have them ready for careers and affordable family formation at age 18.

    Miss Minnie

    October 25, 2015 at 1:47 AM

  10. Lion, you’re just like that New Yorker covering looking at the world from manhattan. If you want to argue that stop and frisk plays a role in all this you need to compare cities with and without it that are as similar in every other respect as possible.

    Lloyd Llewellyn

    October 25, 2015 at 9:43 AM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: