Skip to main content

Cover of NYCLU report: Stop and Frisk 2011-2012
Next time, it could be you, if you are a Black or Latino male.
Some have already written this week about the decision in Floyd v. City of New York finding that Stop and Frisk was unconstitutional as implemented by the City of New York. The decision (which is written in 2 parts, one addressing the City's liability for racial discrimination in implementing Stop and Frisk, the other setting forth the remedies ordered by the court in response) is as historic as it seems (and thus is guaranteed to go up on appeal). While much has been written about the decision, little has been said about anything other than the statistics (aka the battle of experts) that went on at trial and, some contend, led to Judge Shira Scheindlin's decision. Yet ultimately, this case did not turn just on statistics. It turned on stories: the stories of the named plaintiffs in Floyd and the stories of the rhetoric of the NYPD about its goals and objectives despite the public face of Mayor Bloomberg insisting that it was "not about race." It was those stories that ultimately gave life to the disembodied statistics and the battle of the experts that the judge would have otherwise likely fallen asleep over (judges hate battles of the experts IME) and which caused her to actually "Get It" in terms of the evil operation of NYPD's stop and frisk program.

Follow me below the fold for some of the reasons why I believe this.

Some background is necessary to contextualize the Floyd decision and to order and understand why ultimately Judge Scheindlin "got it" in terms of her personal understanding of why Stop and Frisk was fundamentally an assault, as applied, on the constitutional rights of people of color in America. The Floyd case was filed in 2008 by 13 Black male plaintiffs on behalf of that class of Black and Latino men improperly targeted—stopped and frisked under Stop and Frisk. The case sought (initially) damages and injunctive relief against the NYPD. The complaint was later amended to eliminate damages relief, meaning that Judge Scheindlin was asked to impose future-looking relief only. This case is related to two other cases decided earlier this year that also relate to Stop and Frisk: Davis v. New York and Ligon v. City of New York. Each of these cases was directed at the excesses of New York City's Trespass Affidavit Program (TAP), also known to New Yorkers as the "Clean Halls Program" as it applied to public (Davis) and privately owned (Ligon) housing.  

For those who have never heard of TAP, it gives new meaning to the term "police state." Under TAP, NYC Housing Authority properties, and privately owned properties with the written consent of the landlord, are deemed to be "high crime" areas in which the NYPD is granted heightened authority to arrest individuals for trespass. To reiterate, any building that is enrolled in TAP is a building in which, at any time, any visitor is subject to Stop and Frisk and faces possible arrest for trespass. At last count, 3200 apartment buildings in New York City are enrolled in TAP.

In January, 2013, in Ligon Judge Scheindlin found that TAP as applied to stops outside of privately-owned housing appeared unconstitutional whether or not the private property owner had consented to TAP. In March, she issued a partial summary judgment order in Davis, which held that some aspects of TAP as applied were constitutional (and others not) as it related to public housing residents and guests. Judge Scheindlin deferred remedies in both Ligon and Davis pending resolution of the claims in Floyd at trial.

The named plaintiffs in Ligon and Davis were overwhelmingly Black (one out of the eight named Ligonplaintiffs is Latino, as are 3 of the 16 Davisplaintiffs). In addition to the testimony of the named plaintiffs, were serving as class representatives, there was also a lot of statistical evidence that was brought to bear in Floyd, much of it discussed far more thoroughly than I have the skill to do here. Suffice it to say, it was that evidence that advised the world that under Stop and Frisk, more Black men had been detained in New York than actually lived in the City of New York. And that advised us that as a matter of percentages, although far far more Black and Latino people were stopped under Stop and Frisk, it was whites who were shown to possess more illegal contraband and guns.

Yet statistics IMO cannot speak to the harm that needed to end. And, reading the Floyd decision, it seems clear that it was the stories of how Stop and Frisk and TAP operated on the ground to keep Black and Latino people under siege in their own homes, not the battle of the experts via statistics, that ultimately persuaded Judge Scheindlin about the complete irrationality of Stop and Frisk as implemented, and about the utter inability of the psyche of the NYPD to voluntarily accept its own racism, such that Stop and Frisk could be operated in a truly race-neutral fashion (after all, the NYPD had known for more than a decade that there was a racial discrimination problem associated with it's implementation of Stop and Frisk. The stories she heard involved not just the victims of stop and frisk, but also the psyche of the NYPD as it operated Stop and Frisk day by day.  

[An important, to me, aside that I hope folks will take to heart: this whistleblowing was notably not noticed or celebrated around here by the folks who usually write about whistleblowers at Daily Kos; given the actual history of (as opposed to ephemeral paranoid fears about), retaliatory tactics by law enforcement for breach of the thin blue line of silence, disclosure of this evidence was truly an act of bravery by those officers that should have been a lot more publicly celebrated by progressives claiming to care about whistleblowing.]

And what stories she heard, not just about whether a single detention and/or arrest was evidence of racial discrimination (the judge found some were, some weren't, which is why the Bloomberg/Kelly whine machine that has been in full operation post-decision is just dead wrong about what Judge Scheindlin does, or does not "understand"), but about these stories occurring over and over and over again, all with the same results. Those stories cut across all three cases, Floyd, Davis and Ligon. They included stories such as the one involving the 13-year-old son of the first named plaintiff in the Ligon, who was stopped and frisked walking home from the corner store after his mother sent him there to buy ketchup for dinner. And only then returned to his mother by a police officer (who laughed about the whole thing even though the child's mother had thought her son was dead when the police rang her doorbell.) Those alone would likely not have swayed the judge; after all, these stories existed long ago in New York and nothing was done.

The stories that IMO weighed most heavily on the judge, going by her opinion in Floyd were the stories about the NYPD's utter indifference to the possibility that its version of law enforcement was racist to the core, such that a scorched earth decision and far reaching remdies were the only way to minimize the harm done. Those stories were the stories told by policemen and public officials themselves. For example, the best evidence that NYPD, through its Commissioner Ray Kelly (who is currently still being considered for appointment as director of Homeland Security despite that administration being run, at last observation, by a Black man named President Barack Hussein Obama, which really is just sad, sad, sad), is all about consciously using racism and racial stereotypes which do not apply to more than 90 percent of Black people as an institutional part of law enforcement, comes from the testimony of New York state Sen. Eric Adams at trial in Floyd. That testimony, which notably Ray Kelly refused to take the witness stand to testify about although he was invited to do so by Judge Scheindlin like every other fact witness (extra kudos to Judge Scheindlin for refusing to allow Kelly to file a denial declaration on paper without having to actually be available at trial to be cross-examined about it or to, at a minimum, submit himself to deposition), was that Ray Kelly said to him in defense of NYPD practices that he "wanted [Black and Latino] men to be afraid every time they left their homes." Adams also testified that Kelly did not demur when it was pointed out to him that using race in this fashion was illegal (doh) but instead asked, "How else are we going to get rid of guns?" (A question which, in light of the extremely low rate of recovery of guns through the racially discriminatory way that Stop and Frisk has been implemented, seems best answered, "Some other way than THIS.").

At trial in Floyd, Judge Scheindlin also heard recounted by sworn police officers about police officers being discouraged from stopping whites even when objectively there was a race-neutral reason for suspicion came from officers themselves. The Floyd decision highlights, as one of several examples, the stop by NYPD of a white woman who was chosen for further scrutiny based upon an unquestionably race-neutral objective fact: walking alone in St. Mary's Park (located in the South Bronx) very late at night after the park had closed. What the trial record disclosed was not only was this woman not frisked, the police officer who stopped her was told he had done the wrong thing by stopping her at all:

On one of the Serrano recordings, Deputy Inspector Christopher McCormack explained to Officer Serrano that stopping “the right people, [at] the right time, [in] the right location” meant not stopping “a 48-year-old lady [who] was walking through St. Mary’s Park when it was closed.”

He continued as follows:

INSPECTOR: This is about stopping the right people, the right place, the right location.

SERRANO: Okay.

INSPECTOR: Again, take Mott Haven [a Bronx housing project that is overwhelmingly Black and Latino] where where we had the most problems. And the most problems we had, they was robberies and grand larcenies.

SERRANO: And who are those people robbing?
INSPECTOR: The problem was, what, male blacks. And I told you at roll call, and I have no problem telling you this, male blacks 14 to 20, 21. I said this at roll call.
Floyd, at 84-85 (footnotes omitted, emphasis added.)

Judge Scheindlin, rightly, pointed out why this particular evidence should be extremely troubling to anyone who has the capacity for rational, as opposed to unconsciously racist, thought:
The direction not to stop “a 48-year-old lady [who] was walking through St. Mary’s Park when it was closed,” is just one example of instructions not to stop all individuals for whom a justification for a stop exists, but only to stop the right people. . .While this particular instruction seems benign, to the extent that the NYPD focuses its resources on blacks and Hispanics to the exclusion of whites generally, the result is deeply troubling. White people also carry guns and contraband, but if the NYPD declines to stop them, they will go undetected and unrepresented in crime statistics.

In addition, applying law enforcement tactics unequally between various racial groups is a recipe for abuse. “[N]othing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow . . . officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will apply [the law] and thus to escape the political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected.” . . . I note one poll shows that 76% of black voters disapprove of Stop and Frisk.
(Floyd at 192, Fn. 1 (citations omitted, emphasis added.)

The blockquoted language above is, to me, why I believe that the heart of the Floyd decision (and its decision to apply similar remedies in Ligon and Davis was not the data, but the stories. It would have been very easy for Judge Scheindlin to refuse to point out that discrimination in law enforcement based upon racial stereotypes is a self-reinforcing mechanism that only guarantees more racism, with NO actual guarantee that crime will be reduced because ½ the criminals benefit from white privilege and, thus, benefit from the assumption of innocence. She could have just focused on the lopsided statistics, and stopped there.

Yet she didn't avoid saying it. In a candor that may only be possible from someone her age and in her position of power, she instead broke down into words of one syllable what Black (and Latino) folks have been trying to tell whites to no avail for decades: "We are just as law abiding as you, we just get caught more because your racism doesn't let you see your own criminal white neighbors."

And, just to make sure that we knew that she "got it," as it related to this issue of racist law enforcement by the NYPD, Judge Scheindlin ended her decision on the merits in Floyd by quoting from one of several heartwrenching op-eds written by Charles Blow in response to the verdict acquitting George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin:

I conclude with a particularly apt quote: “The idea of universal suspicion without individual evidence is what Americans find abhorrent and what black men in America must constantly fight. It is pervasive in policing policies — like stop-and-frisk, and . . . neighborhood watch - regardless of the collateral damage done to the majority of innocents. It's like burning down a house to rid it of mice.
NYPD having burned the house down, it was clear that Judge Scheindlin felt she needed to take drastic steps to try and reign things in and fast. I believe that it is because of the stories that she heard, over and over, about the emotional impact of the Stop and Frisk and Clean Halls programs on their victims. She got that all you need to know about the adverse psychological and practical impact (neighborhoods under siege, and not just by regular criminals) that Clean Halls and Stop and Frisk as implemented had on Black and Latino New Yorkers can be summed up easily. Listen and learn from the view of the young Black man included in a story about Stop and Frisk and Clean Halls published by The Atlantic last year when the Davis and Ligon cases finally got some media attention:
"At this point, I'd rather come home and deal with a robbery than deal with being stopped by the police," said Dominick Walters, a 20-year-old college student who has been arrested twice for trespassing while visiting friends or acquaintances. Both cases were dismissed, but not before both Walters and the city spent a considerable amount of time and money clearing his name. After his first arrest, Walters spent four days in a cell, sleeping in the dress coat and tie he had donned that day for work as a salesman. By the time he emerged, he'd missed two days on the job.
Talk about needing to take the law into your own hands....
Judge Scheindlin also got that one had to focus on the stories, and not the statistics, to get a true understanding of how Stop and Frisk actually operated, as opposed to the NYPD theory of why it operated.  Over and over again in Floyd, Ligon and Davis Judge Scheindlin was forced to make a credibility determination between a citizen's version of a Stop and Frisk and the detaining officers. This makes sense: By the time that the Davis, Ligon and Floyd class actions were involved raising the question of unconstitutional racial discrimination in the implementation of New York's Clean Halls and Stop and Frisk programs, things had gotten so outrageous as it related to the wholesale harassment of Black and Latino men by the NYPD that the NYACLU felt compelled to develop a smartphone app so that citizens were empowered with the means to record and report constitutional violations on the spot.

(Needless to say, NYPD was none too happy with this development. Indeed, in a pique of really-sad irony, NYPD's public reaction was to express that its opposition to the app was grounded in ... wait for it ... concerns about citizens' SAFETY and PRIVACY.)

It is clear that Judge Scheindlin believed that there was a systematic abuse of power, the type that gets apps developed to stop it, by the NYPD, because of the stories she heard under oath. Certainly, her decision on remedies reflects that she "got" the extreme power that eliminating the possibility of police perjury will have in reigning in NYPD abuses. For example, the Floyd remedies doubles down on the NYCLU's separate efforts via app to document police abuse by ordering a trial program in which officers in "high crime precincts" will be compelled to wear video cameras throughout their day. In choosing such a remedy, Judge Scheindlin clearly "got" that she was not dealing with racism, not rational thought, and acted accordingly to establish her court's broad authority to compel rationality at least as it relates to the respect due from law enforcement to Black and Latino people as taxpaying citizens of the City of New York. I suspect Judge Scheindlin didn't make her camera order because she doesn't expect to see too much evidence of police change. After all, she made a point of noting that after body cameras on cops were implemented by the small town of Rialto, Calfornia, citizen complaints about law enforcement abuse dropped by 88 percent in just ONE year. (Floyd II, p. 26-27.) In other words, although the pilot program remedy is couched as an evidentiary one, I believe that the judge knows full well that by eliminating any possibility for he-said, she-said in citizen-law enforcement interactions under Stop and Frisk, she will see a drop in citizen complaints in New York similar to those found in Rialto.

Or else.  

Given the tenor of her decision on the merits in Floyd, although its language is restrained, it is clear that Judge Scheindlin was furious that the city refused to undertake what is a normal and expected process of federal court class action litigation: the negotiation of a meaningful settlement with remedies prior to trial. And, given the several times that she notes the burden she had to undertake in adjudicating this case was increased because of the recalcitrance of the NYPD in all three cases, it is clear why she felt a court monitor (which she ordered) was the only meaningful way to ensure that change starts now, rather than later.

Finally, Judge Scheindlin also got that the harm was far broader than that articulated by the individual plaintiffs, pushing back on the common defense tactic that each abusive stop had to be looked at separately. Make no mistake: As it related to the named plaintiffs in the three cases she had before her, she did make a particularized inquiry, and separate factual finding (some were a constitutional violation, some not, some partially so). Yet she also recognized that the perspective of the community about the police generated by Stop and Frisk undermined not only the rule of law and anti-discrimination principles, it also ultimately would adversely impact the effectiveness of New York City's entire system of law enforcement:

The Supreme Court has recognized that “the degree of community resentment aroused by particular practices is clearly relevant to an assessment of the quality of the intrusion upon reasonable expectations of personal security.” In light of the very active and public debate on the issues addressed in this Opinion — and the passionate positions taken by both sides — it is important to recognize the human toll of unconstitutional stops. While it is true that any one stop is a limited intrusion in duration and deprivation of liberty, each stop is also a demeaning and humiliating experience. No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life. Those who are routinely subjected to stops are overwhelmingly people of color, and they are justifiably troubled to be singled out when many of them have done nothing to attract the unwanted attention. Some plaintiffs testified that stops make them feel unwelcome in some parts of the City, and distrustful of the police. This
alienation cannot be good for the police, the community, or its leaders. Fostering trust and confidence between the police and the community would be an improvement for everyone.
In other words, as Judge Scheindlin noted, the evil of Stop and Frisk and Clean Halls as practiced is not just the racism in the implementation of these policies, but their inevitable encouragement of a practice that America claims to be long-based: systematic abuse of private citizens based upon race counting on those not so affected to not do anything politically to stop it.

For those who still wonder why this all matters, or will yet again rush to defend "most officers" whenever a complaint about the harm they cause in Black and other minority communities and have caused for decades, the decisions pre-trial in Davis and Ligon, read in light of the coup de grace of Judge Scheindlin's post-trial decision in Floyd, leaves no quarter for rational debate about the harm of these practices. They are, at a minimum, racist as applied (although there is some debate about whether they have always been racist from their inception under the Dinkins Administration, or whether the Bloomberg Administration has taken what otherwise was a neutral program and turned into an arm of the Nouveaux Jim Crow. The fact that former Mayor Dinkins is Black is not dispositive: Anyone paying attention knows that anti-Black racism is consciously and unconsciously practiced by Black people very day thanks to the same hundreds of years of white supremacist training in America. One need only look at the lone Black candidate in the NYC mayor's race, Bill Thompson, and his refusal until recently to so much as raise a peep of complaint about Stop and Frisk even though—as the ages of the plaintiffs in Floyd make clear—but for circumstance, Bill Thompson could have been a plaintiff himself.)

If practices such as those now enjoined in Floyd and Ligon (and, by extension, Davis) are what defines your entire relationship to the police because they are never around when you actually need them (since everyone living in these neighbors knows that the drag-ass police/fire/paramedic response to calls from Black neighborhoods dissected in Public Enemy's911 is a Joke is TRUE), is there any wonder that there such a horrible relationship between the Black community in particular, and law enforcement such that young people would gladly hoist themselves by their own petard adopting emotional stances such as "No Snitching"? If the police are your tormentors just as you go about your daily business, every day, is there any reason that a rational Black male or Latino male subjected repeatedly to this wouldn't distrust at a minimum, or even come to hate, the police?

To ask the question is to answer it.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 05:00 PM PDT.

Also republished by Black Kos community, LatinoKos, Barriers and Bridges, and Support the Dream Defenders.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  bigots and laws (0+ / 0-)

    The justification for this law that clearly targets a subgroup that is easy to target is that it reduces harm.  Yes, it violates certain rights, but it increases safety.  This is not always a bad thing.

    On the other hand, when I hear of laws like this, I ask what other cases could we significantly decrease risk with an easy implemented law, but do not because it would inconvenience powerful groups.  For instance, older drivers routinely murder innocent people with their cars.  Like the driver who goes out every weekend and get wasted, they enter the care fully knowing that they are impaired, and sometimes mutilate innocent victims.  Yet we do not take the simple action of requiring drivers over a certain age to take a drivers test every year.  Driving, unlike walking down the street, is not a right and no rights would be violated doing this.  But, presumably because old people tend to be white, they have the right to murder people with impunity while young black men, doing nothing wrong, don't have the right to walk down the street.

    We saw this same thing with drugs.  People are free meth in their suburban homes, but live in the projects, and have a grandchild over who does drugs, and you no longer have a place to live.

  •  excellent.... (9+ / 0-)

    thanks for this diary.  The decision was a highlight of my week.

    Not that anyone I know thinks this will really change anything effective immediately.  :(

    All the suffering of this world arises from a wrong attitude.The world is neither good or bad. It is only the relation to our ego that makes it seem the one or the other - Lama Anagorika Govinda

    by kishik on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 05:15:48 PM PDT

  •  Powerful diary, thanks. (11+ / 0-)

    "Truth catches up with you in here. It's the truth that's gonna make you hurt." - Piper Chapman

    by blueoregon on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 05:16:13 PM PDT

  •  Whites just might get how oppressive this law (15+ / 0-)

    is when they are stopped and frisked en masse and for apparently no damned reason. No "probable cause," no nuthin.'

    These laws would change, and fast.

    Especially if upper-class whites were stopped and frisked. People with "clout."

    "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

    by Wildthumb on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 05:18:49 PM PDT

  •  I hope that this decision will show our (8+ / 0-)

    president that Kelly is the worst choice he could make at this point in time, and it's not just this situation.

    The Bloomberg administration has been eavesdropping on citizens all over the country and not in the name of national security.

    This whole thing makes me sick to my stomach without Kelly being given a national role.


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 05:22:02 PM PDT

  •  Imagine what could have been accomplished (11+ / 0-)

    if all the resources poured into harassing African-American and Latino men had instead been put into actual, you know, crimefighting.  Something like 6% of the stops led to finding anything remotely illegal.  Continuing the harassment and keeping some communities cowed was important enough to the Powers That Be to justify throwing away enormous amounts of money and time.

    Minor typo:

    Judge Scheindlin clearly "got" that she was not dealing with racism, not rational thought
    I believe you meant to say she "got" that she WAS dealing with racism.

    I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

    by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 05:34:30 PM PDT

  •  I'm just glad I don't live in NYC (0+ / 0-)

    for a multitude of reasons.

    Que sera sera.

    Through early morning fog I see visions of the things to be the pains that are withheld for me I realize and I can see...

    by Keith930 on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 05:48:55 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the analysis (7+ / 0-)

    I haven't lived in NYC for almost 50 years, but I do like to know what's happening there in a general way. I have seen the Stop and Frisk videos posted online, and vaguely followed the case.

    This post makes it clear that not only the victim testimony had a strong impact, but the police testimony must have done even more to cement it. It's appalling to me that police higher echelons see absolutely nothing wrong with what is going on. Those street cops who complain or don't follow through are retaliated against if they don't shape up.

    I'm so pleased with this decision. Yes, some of us get it. Definite kudos to Judge Sheindlin.

    Being attentive to the needs of others might not be the point of life, but it is the work of life. It can be ... almost impossibly difficult. But it is not something we give. It is what we get in exchange for having to die. - Jonathan Safran Foer

    by ramara on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 06:06:45 PM PDT

  •  Bloomberg penned an opinion piece tonight in WAPO (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, ladybug53, Ahianne

    I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain

    by route66 on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 06:12:36 PM PDT

  •  Bill Thompson and Stop and Frisk (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ladybug53, DocGonzo

    Well before two weeks ago and notwithstanding his support from police unions, Bill Thompson, while refusing to put an end to stop and frisk if elected mayor, reminded reporters and audiences that he was the only candidate whose son would be a probable target of stop and frisk.  He said that stop and frisk was a legitimate police tactic, but only when it was used legitimately - which it was not in New York.  

  •  Is it solid enough to hold up on appeal? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ladybug53, Ahianne, Tonedevil

    Because I understand that Bloomberg and Kelly want to keep their extraordinary powers.

    And I trust your judgement about how solid the judge's opinion is.

    If it is, it is truly something to cheer about.

    Thanks for the detailed analysis.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 06:41:57 PM PDT

  •  I'm totally against this but ... (0+ / 0-)

    just want to throw this out there.

    The most impassioned defenses of stop and frisk that I've heard (I generally tune out Bloomberg) have been from two stroller pushing moms that negotiate areas in Brooklyn.

    Note this is an entirely anecdotal sample: two occasions, two moms with other moms not voicing agreement but not arguing. For some context both moms were "not white" (or Asian if that matters).

    As an (old) white dad I kept entirely silent during both tirades, and they were tirades. When New York was rougher decades ago I walked on some minor traffic stuff because of my skin color and I'm not going to get rousted by the NYPD given my demographic.

    I'm bringing this up here as I think there's a further question of what a community can bring to the table to replace what stop and frisk is (allegedly) providing. It's all fun and utopian to envision a USA with stricter gun controls and significantly saner drug laws taking the profit out of violent criminality but I personally don't see much of that within reach near term. How the hell can the level of criminality, which does exist, be rolled back?

    I didn't feel it was my place to start pontificating about civil liberties to a mother who was scared of random hand gun violence and was impassioned that stop and frisk was cutting down the chances of being collateral damage in a beef. Morally and politically I don't think these moms were in the right, but statistically I couldn't argue with their reasoning even if me even opening my mouth wouldn't have stunk of some serious white I-don't-have-to-live-there privilege.

    This being the web and dkos and my post swimming against the group think I suspect this will not go well. Note I'm only online occasionally these days so flame away if desired but don't expect endless thread participation.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 06:43:32 PM PDT

    •  It's Rolled Back (0+ / 0-)

      You are arguing that stop and frisk makes NYC safer.

      It doesn't. It keeps people in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods from reporting crimes to the police they don't trust. Which keeps crimes being committed, but off the books. It keeps the cops from having to dirty their hands

      NYC has good gun laws now, but CT, NJ and PA could have better ones without being "utopian" which would protect them and NYC even more. NY doesn't even have a medical marijuana law, but if it actually legalized pot instead of letting cops ignore White people smoking, if the Federal government stopped prosecuting anything but possibly interstate drug crimes, then violence would disappear from all but the addictive drug trade. If Bloomberg or his successor actually cared about people's health, especially young people's health, the way he pretends to by outlawing 16oz sodas, we'd have that drug sanity along with medicalizing even addictive drug problems before the criminal system gets a shot at its victims.

      That's not "utopian". That's progress. NYC is very progressive, despite the spikes in power of some very regressive people who get power here.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 09:22:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  reread - I'm not arguing that - don't strawman (0+ / 0-)

        don't strawman me bro ...

        I'm recounting two overheard conversations in the stroller area. From two moms who actually live in the stop and frisk zones and who were arguing that. (FWIW I do not live in a stop and frisk zone and I would not get pulled for many demographic reasons). I think their viewpoints deserve airing though I do not agree with them and I'm relatively confident they don't hang out in the comment threads of left Democratic Party blogs.

        If you're under the illusion that gun laws in a couple of neighboring states would do anything you have very little experience with the black market. I'm all for legalization / decriminalization though I think it would have to extend to cocaine as well. Also bootleg cigarettes are a pretty big business here and have attracted armed criminals. Also ...

        > It keeps people in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods from reporting crimes to the police they don't trust.

        That's simplified to the level of cliche. Regardless of a level of trust cops cannot protect everyone, all the time. Under reporting of crime isn't really the issue if you actually live there. It's collateral damage. When the bullets fly they don't stop until they hit something or someone. It's scary to be down the street from the poppoppop - I speak from recent experience here.

        I don't think or argue that stop and frisk works, but I didn't have an argument for the moms who were saying it made pushing their strollers around the projects safer. Except for generic liberal abstraction, do you?

        Try actually discussing the post rather than echo chambering talking points. Though that happens less and less on kos in my limited experience.

        If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

        by jgnyc on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 10:05:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You Argued That (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, a2nite

          You threw in with your anecdote the following assertion:

          statistically I couldn't argue with their reasoning

          Their reasoning is that stop and frisk protects them from handgun violence, and you agree. You are wrong, and now you're denying you said it.

          I can tell you that I have plenty of experience with the black market in NYC. I undestand how harm reduction works. The harder it is to get a gun in, or near, NYC the fewer guns will be got here, and the fewer guns the fewer are fired. It's not a complete end to guns in NYC, but it is a reducer. Which is why Bloomberg is such an advocate for it (despite his various other tyrannies).

          The effect of stop and frisk on Black and Hispanic people working with cops is well documented. There's a whole "don't snitch" movement in ghettoes nationwide, including in NYC. Maybe you don't get it, because of the White privilege you keep invoking as counterintuitively making you some kind of expert, but since I lived in many neighborhoods with stop and frisk, including nearly a decade under Bloomberg/Kelly in an 80% Black neighborhood, I can tell you that it's real.

          You sound like you've got White guilt so bad you can't even help inform other White people about the damage their privilege is doing. You deny common sense principles like the counterproductive effect stop and frisk has on a community's safety. You deny you agree with the White moms, while giving some kind of disclaimer about their being wrong but you don't know how to argue about it. Then you accuse me of echo chambering talking points, while calling the "liberal" approach "utopian".

          Try getting real. Or get lost. It'll be more convenient for you.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 07:36:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  it's funny how you turned (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jgnyc, a2nite
            For some context both moms were "not white" (or Asian if that matters).
            into
            You deny you agree with the White moms,
            Read you own last paragraph, and take your own advice.

            Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

            by Deward Hastings on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 10:57:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Turning (0+ / 0-)

              Yes, saying the moms were White was my mistake. Which had nothing to do with the rest of the points I made in that comment or this subthread. But you want to use that mistake as a pretext for stopping me from making those other points you're ignoring. I won't. You should try looking into "mendacity".

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 05:45:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  step off gonzo (0+ / 0-)

            You're not reading what I wrote. And you think if you write "White guilt" you can make me shut up. You just feel like fighting because on the internet no one can call you on it to your face. Unlike the big city.

            > I have plenty of experience with the black market in NYC

            No you don't blog warrior. You're a phony. Step off. You obviously aren't ready for a nuanced conversation.
             

            If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

            by jgnyc on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 04:27:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Back Down (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite

              Look, tough guy, I don't care whether you believe in my experience or not. I just pointed out the evidence of where you agreed with those women, despite what you claimed, and now you're ignoring it in favor of talking like you're challenging me to a fight. I didn't even tell you to shut up, though you probably should since you're going down that road.

              And then you have the nerve to say I'm not ready for a nuanced conversation? You're an idiot. How's that for nuance? Nuance doens't mean you can contradict yourself, change the subject when presented with the evidence that you're blathering, and then talk tough - while projecting those personality defects you're parading onto me.

              Maybe I was wrong. Maybe it's not White guilt keeping you from telling those moms they're wrong. Maybe you're just full of crap. That might make you feel like fighting. Me, I just feel like lauging at you.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 08:39:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  look accept what I actually wrote for nuance (0+ / 0-)

                I wrote I don't agree with stop and frisk. So stop the strawman if you can. My question was how to address the legit concerns of someone, I mentioned specifics, who lives there and does agree. I'm not saying that's a majority of those in the stop and frisk zone. From my experience in Brooklyn (I work there) the majority is totally against it for the reasons I (and you?) would expect. Or, given who I work with, not paying that much attention, which can be said about many not in the blog echo chamber.

                The specific question - and I'm asking I don't have an answer or I'd bring it up - was what can the community do outside of supporting Bloomberg and his statistics driven argument or standing on principle and ignoring the concerns of my aforementioned stroller pushers. For instance: What should I have said to the moms I mentioned? I don't personally have an answer which was why I posted.

                And ... you should check your head. You capitalize "White" which is weird. You use "white guilt" and whitewhitewhite like a bully. Either you're white or your not, but either is rhetorically offensive and a lefty caricature the right has long exploited to great electoral and tribal advantage. You went whitewhitewhite in your initial reply which was the beginning of the ad hominem. I mentioned my skin color in the initial post because it's salient to me not getting pulled in Brooklyn.

                If you want to stop strawman-ing, talking tough and posturing there might be a conversation here worth having. There's a lot of grey area that the left litmus tests and claims privilege to shut down any discussion of. This hasn't been a positive over the years.

                If not, it's cool, go in peace or get lost depending on which attitude makes you think you've accomplished whatever it was you were after by flame warring.

                If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

                by jgnyc on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 09:20:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Check Your Head (0+ / 0-)

                  You threw in with your anecdote the following assertion:

                  statistically I couldn't argue with their reasoning

                  Their reasoning is that stop and frisk protects them from handgun violence, and you agree.

                  Yes, you also wrote you don't agree, which is some "nuance" that is wiped out by saying you agree.  Which is not "nuance", it's unclarity, your fault.

                  You heap scorn on the "Liberal" point of view, even now with unsubstantiated rightwing scorn like "liberal litmus tests". You keep saying people are trying to shut you up, but I don't see anything except your angry reactions to people calling you on what you say.

                  You're the one implying we should fistfight, so drop the accusations of "talking tough".

                  All that heat makes it very difficult to see any light in your attacks.

                  Maybe after all your bluster what you mean is that you disagree, but you don't have the statistics to disagree even though you believe they do exist. If I'm still inclined to be charitable to your posts, despite all the reasons not to indulge in any charity to you, that could be the "nuance" you're struggling against yourself to present. OK, how about the stat that of the millions of stop and frisks supposedly necessary to protect NYC from guns, 95% of victims didn't have evidence of any crime, let alone illegal guns - except the crime of not being White. That stat is primary and very well known among people who care. Or you could try the simple logic of "we could just lock up every Black male instead of sending them to public school", which is the obvious argument

                  Now, as to the minor detail of capitalizing "White", it's your complaint about it that's weird. "White" is not just a color, it's the term a constructed race category whose actual color isn't even white. Names of groups of people are often capitalized in American English, as you can tell by the many instances of "Black" when referring to people. I capitalized "Liberal" too, but that didn't weird you out. But since you're hellbent on nuance and having an actual conversation worth having, why not challenge the nuanced spelling of "White"?

                  I pointed out that White guilt and White privilege might explain your inability to explain to those moms why stop and frisk is counterproductive in protecting them. I backed up those points with some logic. Suggesting your race and the luxuries available to it, which you used in this diary to define what you're saying, is what interferes with your ability to explain why stop and frisk is bad, is not "bullying". Really you just seem, in your extended commenting, to want a fight. While attacking me for pointing that out. Which looks like you just want a fight.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 05:52:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you misunderstand - though not surprising (0+ / 0-)

                    given the rest of your reasoning.

                    You quote me:

                    "statistically I couldn't argue with their reasoning"

                    By which I meant: what am I supposed to say? "excuse me miss but statistics prove that stop and frisk does not lower crime or random shootings in your area" Which mind you they don't. Neither pro or anti stop and frisk statistics prove anything as you can't prove a negative (and lies, damned lies and statistics ... ) Tangentally NYPD are demonstrably shining various crimes, there was a whistle blower about this a while back. My point was arguing against her visceral reaction in favor of stop and frisk with some policy wonking or civil liberties speechifying did not seem appropriate. Note one overheard conversation was much more emphatic than the other.

                    " that White guilt and White privilege might explain your inability to explain to those moms why stop and frisk is counterproductive"

                    So what would you have said? Go into some detail as you've obviously thought this out. Which was the point of my whole generic-dkos-waste-of-time post. You may have a hard time getting your head around this but what prevented me from engaging was geographic, not racial. We were sitting with our kids. My kids don't have to dodge bullets given where I live.

                    As to " White guilt and White privilege"? I carry no guilt for the original sin of the Republic and if that's a problem for you, carry on. Being white has gotten me off the hook with the NYPD decades ago. It didn't help with the LAPD. But I sure am used to "White privilege" as a phrase being used to bully on the blogs.

                    You also say: "You're the one implying we should fistfight" Block quote that.

                    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

                    by jgnyc on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 07:08:41 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Just Want to Fight (0+ / 0-)

                      I included in my last post

                      OK, how about the stat that of the millions of stop and frisks supposedly necessary to protect NYC from guns, 95% of victims didn't have evidence of any crime, let alone illegal guns - except the crime of not being White. That stat is primary and very well known among people who care. Or you could try the simple logic of "we could just lock up every Black male instead of sending them to public school", which is the obvious argument

                      Which was the point of your whole generic-dkos-waste-of-time post. But somehow you missed that, and it's not just a one-word response in my longer post. You didn't even respond to that, instead responding to anything else you possibly can.

                      Like I said, you just want to fight.


                      You:
                      You just feel like fighting because on the internet no one can call you on it to your face. Unlike the big city.

                      Me: You're the one implying we should fistfight.

                      Goodbye.

                      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                      by DocGonzo on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 10:57:02 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  Judicial races... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, Ahianne

    Judicial races are the HARDEST to get people interested in but are some of the most important. So many times a wonderful candidate loses to a corrupt or conservative candidate because no one but machine insiders pay attention.

    One we won: http://www.dailykos.com/...

    One we lost: http://www.dailykos.com/...

    I always urge people to get HEAVILY involved in judicial races, school board races, port authority etc. These are where we can have the biggest impact.

    FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. NYC's Progressive/Reform Blog

    by mole333 on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 06:49:36 PM PDT

    •  No school board elections in NYC (0+ / 0-)

      The schools are run by the mayor.

      Judicial appointments are controlled by corrupt machines and there hasn't been much interest in changing that. :(

      The Port Authority board is appointed by the two governors (NY and NJ) and little attention is given to these appointments.

  •  Seems like a cheap shot (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DocGonzo
    [An important, to me, aside that I hope folks will take to heart: this whistleblowing was notably not noticed or celebrated around here by the folks who usually write about whistleblowers at Daily Kos; given the actual history of (as opposed to ephemeral paranoid fears about), retaliatory tactics by law enforcement for breach of the thin blue line of silence, disclosure of this evidence was truly an act of bravery by those officers that should have been a lot more publicly celebrated by progressives claiming to care about whistleblowing.]
    A search for Pedro Serrano turns up this diary by Deoliver, which was tipped or recced or both by a lot of people "claiming to care about whistleblowing." Including me.

    Alsotwo diaries by jpmasser, one of whose titles Denise seems to have stolen ;) and one each by poopdogcomedy, Vyan, and IndiePundit.

    Should there have been more?  Probably, but complaining about diaries that aren't written has always been one of the cheapest shots on Daily Kos.

    I want to see Snowden get a fair trial, an impartial jury, and the same sentence James Clapper gets for lying to Congress.

    by happymisanthropy on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 07:13:19 PM PDT

    •  It's not a cheap shot (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shanikka, HamdenRice

      And most of the examples you found were written by people who don't actually focus on whistle blowing. The diarist didn't say no one wrote about it. She said that those who go on and on about the bravery of whistle blowers apparently didn't care enough to write about this. That's not a cheap shot. That's the truth.

      Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

      by moviemeister76 on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 11:20:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
        It's not a cheap shot
        It's not only a cheap shot, it's a deliberately divisive one.
        And most of the examples you found were written by people who don't actually focus on whistle blowing.
        Most of Daily Kos doesn't actually focus on whistleblowing, so the point is absurd.  The small percentage of kossacks who write diaries in support of whisteblowing wrote half of the diaries in question, so you must be defining "focus on" extremely narrowly.
        The diarist didn't say no one wrote about it. She said that those who go on and on about the bravery of whistle blowers apparently didn't care enough to write about this.
        Neither did the people who go on and on and on about how some leakers aren't really whistleblowers, so what's the point?  
        That's not a cheap shot. That's the truth.
        No, the diarist is bashing imaginary Greenwald/Snowden supporters who don't care about "stop and frisk," even though no such people actually exist.  Instead of arguing with the people who actually defend stop and frisk, she's pissing on people who have been her allies.

        If anyone dropped the ball, it's the people who were giving Bloomberg wet sloppy kisses earlier this year.  Blame the people who were actually supporting the fascists, not the ones who didn't write quite enough diaries opposing it.

        I want to see Snowden get a fair trial, an impartial jury, and the same sentence James Clapper gets for lying to Congress.

        by happymisanthropy on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:01:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just to Be Clear (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          moviemeister76, a2nite

          Those folks do exist, right here at Daily Kos.  They are known for their almost exclusive editorial focus on whistleblowing, and most recently, Ed Snowden. Those who have written about it because they care about abusive law enforcement do not provide the folks who claim to care about whistleblowers any cover for their silence over the centrality of whistleblowing to the NY cases involving the abuse of stop and frisk.

          You claim that they "care".  Well, with all due respect, caring means showing up. And the usual crew who writes about whistleblowing has demonstrated over and over again that they could care less because they have never showed up. They show up with passion only about their stereotypical poster children for "whistleblowing": white people operating from the privilege whiteness gives you in this world to prioritize "freedom" over "survival." People who decide that they are going to disclose information in the name of "liberty" from that big old scary federal government that is clearly out to get us all.

          People just like themselves.

          But as it relates to three police officers who were the epitome of bravery and not only went into the lion's den every day for a long time wearing a wire in a place where everyone's packing, and who ultimately spoke out under oath on behalf of those victims who are nothing like them, and thus put on the line not only their careers but quite possibly their lives (knowing how the Thin Blue Line operates to take care of itself, over and over again--and it is not by just calling a whistleblower cop names like "traitor", which so far is the worst harm that most of the folks they champion have ever faced)? The absence of the people you say "care" is telling.

          You can, and obviously have, call me noting that "a cheap shot." We disagree: I call it letting folks know they are being hypocritical. I assume you saw my other diary today, about the accusation of WoC being "divisive" when they speak truth to power and call a spade a spade and the impact of that on our ability as women to actually solve problems? Same shit, different day, when it comes to you raising that argument (i.e. I'M being divisive) in this context.

          •  Who? (0+ / 0-)

            There are maybe two diarists I can think of who "focus" on whistleblowing.  Was that remark really intended to apply to only two people?  You can't draw that circle much bigger without including jpmasser who certainly has nothing to apologize for.

            Meanwhile, the front page of Daily Kos was thick with items praising Michael Bloomberg from December to February. You know, actually defending the principal sponsor of stop and frisk?  

            There are people who actually support stop and frisk.  Attacking people for opposing it but just not loud enough is counterproductive and stupid.

            Reasonable suspicion? How can being wrong 98.6% of the time ever be reasonable?

            by happymisanthropy on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 09:50:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I Am Well Aware of (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite

              Both the folks here at Daily Kos who support stop and frisk and those who believe that Mayor Bloomberg isn't an asshole.  Thank you, though, for telling me something I already knew as if I needed you to school me on it.

              But those people have nothing to do with the folks who we were discussing (people who have made whistleblowing the central subject of their discourse here at Daily Kos.) So don't deflect, please.  It's a common tactic that simply does not work on me anymore.

              BTW your new "it's only 2 people" argument? Also defensive; but this time it's called minimizing (another very familiar tactic.). And a somewhat disingenuous one--because a lot more than 2 people support their whistleblowing diaries while also being notable by their absence in discussions about stop and frisk and--relevant here--the central role that whistleblowing played in that.

              •  It just seems to me (0+ / 0-)

                that this entire line of thinking will only divide up people who have been and should be allies.

                Reasonable suspicion? How can being wrong 98.6% of the time ever be reasonable?

                by happymisanthropy on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:28:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  a2nite

                  From my perspective, the existence of the problem I noted (and about which you object me noting) is really what is causing division. Too often, WOC told that it is the calling out of others that is divisive, rather than the underlying problem we've called out.  This mini-discussion between you and I evinces more of the same. It does send the message, whether or not intended, that rhetorical comfort for the majority and permission to continue to operate on its terms without regard for the needs of others, rather than genuine mutual dialogue and solidarity, is what is being asked for.

                  •  jkl; (0+ / 0-)
                    From my perspective, the existence of the problem I noted (and about which you object me noting) is really what is causing division.
                    From my perspective, the policy of stopping and frisking as many people as they can possibly rationalize is the problem.  

                    I'd have to go pretty far down the list of problems before I got to "not enough diaries about NYPD whistleblowers."

                    Too often, WOC told that it is the calling out of others that is divisive, rather than the underlying problem we've called out.
                    You are calling out the people who wrote half the diaries on a particular subject for not having written more diaries on the subject.  They're doing as much as everyone else combined, but it's not enough.  It seems like an impossible standard to me.

                    Unless you're calling out somebody else entirely.  I don't know if you're including me or not.

                    This mini-discussion between you and I evinces more of the same.
                    I'd like to think that both sides could agree to defend the fourth amendment against searches based on unreasonable suspicion on the one hand and general suspicionless surveillance on the other, but I notice that your diary doesn't even mention the fourth amendment.  
                    It does send the message, whether or not intended, that rhetorical comfort for the majority and permission to continue to operate on its terms without regard for the needs of others, rather than genuine mutual dialogue and solidarity, is what is being asked for.
                    Then let's work on genuine mutual dialogue and solidarity.  I want the government, at all levels, to stop shitting all over the fourth amendment. From my perspective that alone should be enough to make us allies on this issue.

                    Reasonable suspicion? How can being wrong 98.6% of the time ever be reasonable?

                    by happymisanthropy on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:41:17 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks very much for this post. I knew stop (4+ / 0-)

    and frisk was deplorable but I simply had no idea how bad.  Props to Judge Scheindlin.  I vote for her in Bill in Portland, Maine's weekly poll of who won the week.  Extra glad that I did.  

    We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

    by Observerinvancouver on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 07:33:32 PM PDT

  •  misperception? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DocGonzo
    "We are just as law abiding as you, we just get caught more because your racism doesn't let you see your own criminal white neighbors."
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/...

    At the approximately  2000 student High School which I attended, over the course of the four years I was there, nobody shot anybody, and nobody was shot by anybody.  That I knew about, anyway, and I was a pretty nosy kid.   A couple kids were killed in a car accident, including one I knew (RIP, Dave Langsdorf).  But kids killing each other was not “normal”.  

    Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

    by Deward Hastings on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 07:42:40 PM PDT

  •  This needs to be entered for diary of the year. I (2+ / 0-)

    truly believe this is on of the best things I have ever read out here.

    if a habitat is flooded, the improvement for target fishes increases by an infinite percentage...because a habitat suitability index that is even a tiny fraction of 1 is still infinitely higher than zero, which is the suitability of dry land to fishes.

    by mrsgoo on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 08:17:31 PM PDT

  •  Kudos to the Judge and to you for (6+ / 0-)

    this "anatomy of a decision".

    I want to also thank the Village Voice, who covered the whistle-blowing officers, and all the aspects of S&F.  

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by Denise Oliver Velez on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 08:22:10 PM PDT

  •  The 4th Amendment Isn't Racist (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    I haven't read the entire 195 page judgement. But what I read from the judge said that nobody should be subject to stop and frisk, that it is unconstitutional because cops don't have probable cause or a warrant or any other due process.

    The fact that racial profiling was used both to target the people whose rights were violated and to ignore their legal and political complaints after they were harmed is a serious problem in its own right that the judge also recognized. It is what is getting all the play in America right now, including in this DKos story. Because America's racism is such an unresolved and ongoing crime, and racism is so personal, that anything related to any racial injustice is going to dominate the picture. And the racism in stop and frisk should get all the attention and remediation it's now getting in the wake of this decision, and more.

    But the even more serious crime is the violation of privacy and due process in stop and frisk. White guilt says it's not as bad as the racism, because White people want to feel like stop and frisk won't happen to them. So even in the wrong deprioritization of privacy and due process race plays a central role. The corporate media doesn't want to talk about the police state, because it long ago accepted its paying role in the police state - and more recently, its paying role in exposing racism right before it's too late to get away with hiding it.

    The right to privacy and due process transcends race. We don't just have those rights regardless of the unpopularity of our skin color, accent or family tree. We have those rights even before and forever after our race even exists. These rights really do transcend race.

    Unfortunately in America we don't have to choose between injustices to correctly address them. We have plenty of them interplaying in most widespread patterns of injustice. But if we don't focus on the police state executed in Michael Bloomberg's and Ray Kelly's New York Stop and Frisk, it won't matter what race you are. Eventually you won't be White or even rich enough to escape it. Bloomberg and Kelly themselves already live a life enslaved to the security state, and it will get only worse. We have to keep this debate wide enough to address the racism, and also the even deeper problems of tyranny, that use racism and other divisions for perpetual tyranny.

    Especially since in this case we the people have won a major victory. Over both racism and tyranny. Let's not let tyranny get a free ride past a graveyard that should hold it as much as it holds another tombstone for racism.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 09:05:30 PM PDT

    •  Well (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shanikka, Ahianne, HamdenRice

      Judging by the statistics, stop and frisk largely doesn't happen to white people who live in NYC. Acknowledging that isn't white guilt. It's an acknowledgment of reality. The only reason Stop & Frisk has been allowed to go on for long is largely attached to that reality. If white people living in NYC were being stopped and frisked at the same rate as people of color, the policy wouldn't have lasted a year.

      Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

      by moviemeister76 on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 11:24:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

        I agree with you. But what I said was a product of White guilt was not the acknowledgement that non-Whites get widely stopped and frisked while Whites generally don't. What I said was that White guilt emphasizes the racial profiling, rather than the violation of universal rights. I think it just let you miss that point.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 07:39:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't understand (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shanikka

          I am not just against it because it is clearly being used in a racist manner. It also is an uncalled for violation of privacy as the statistics show that almost every single person stopped and frisked is innocent of any crime. If white people were stopped and frisked at the same rate as people of color it would not have lasted a year because of that.

          Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

          by moviemeister76 on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 09:58:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Disagreement (0+ / 0-)

            You seem to agree with me. But the story is now presented as "the verdict was that racial profiling was un-Constitutional", making racism the main point of this development. White guilt has White people beating themselves up over the racism, blinding them to the deeper problem of the privacy violation of anyone regardless of race.

            You do get the main point as you just described. But you're somehow not getting my point that the White guilt is putting this case into just the racism category, blinding people to the privacy violation that's even more serious.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 08:33:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shanikka, Ahianne

    new sig, just to prove I don't get it.

    Reasonable suspicion? How can being wrong 98.6% of the time ever be reasonable?

    by happymisanthropy on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 01:57:38 AM PDT

  •  want to eliminate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shanikka

    stop and frisk, do it on wall street to all the suits that hit the street after stealing their goal for the day.

  •  What a wonderful, fact-filled, recap (4+ / 0-)

    on that decision.  Thank you so much for elucidating so much that went into Judge Scheindlin's decision.  The week that was handed down was crazy for me, and I feel like reading your piece got me totally caught up with it.

    Rec'd, tipped, tweeted, and republished.

    Isn't it time for the US Govt to give Leonard Peltier back his freedom? ** "Throwing a knuckleball for a strike is like throwing a butterfly with hiccups across the street into your neighbor's mailbox." -- Willie Stargell

    by Yasuragi on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 07:00:50 AM PDT

  •  Excellent, thanks shanikka nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shanikka, DefendOurConstitution

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 07:32:29 AM PDT

  •  Hey, can we re-post to (3+ / 0-)

    Support the dream defenders.

    Thanks

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 07:35:18 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for this, shanikka! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shanikka, DefendOurConstitution

    Very informative, and I couldn't agree more with your aside.  Well done!

  •  Thank you Sis Shanikka-Just to emphasize (5+ / 0-)

    There is so much insightful and informative material in this diary.

    I just want to emphasize one aspect of the opinion which you mentioned.

    It's that Bloomberg and Kelly try to justify this policy on the basis of minority neighborhoods being high crime areas.

    But they are statistically high crime areas because people are being stopped and frisked. White areas are low crime areas because, even though statistically a white person is more likely to be carrying contraband than a black person, the police are discouraged from stopping and frisking them or operating in their neighborhoods.

    It's a perfectly circular and preposterous situation.

    It also shows how unlike the way most DKers understand racism, it's not about bad police officers or individuals with malice.

    It's about systems that make maltreatment of people of color "normal" even without the racial animus of most of the people operating within the system.

  •  Don't let Quinn get away with it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil

    Stop, Question and Frisk Quinn will continue Bloombergs legacy of racism and persecution.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site