Freedom Portal

Library => Conspiracy then and now. => Topic started by: Rudi Jan on June 28, 2013, 12:41:20 PM

Title: Bloomberg: NYPD officers 'disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities
Post by: Rudi Jan on June 28, 2013, 12:41:20 PM
Bloomberg: NYPD officers 'disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little'

Published time: June 28, 2013 19:48
source: (

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (AFP Photo / Andrew Burton)

In defending New York City’s controversial stop-and-frisk program, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Friday that local police officers “disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little.”

The comment, made by the mayor to radio host John Gambling during a Friday morning interview on WOR-NY, comes on the heels of a New York City Council decision earlier this week to create an independent inspector general to oversee the police department’s practices amid allegations that law enforcement wrongfully targets blacks and Hispanics with its stop-and-frisk program.

Speaking on the air, the mayor dismissed the suggestion that the New York Police Department needs to have an auditor examine its stop-and-frisk program. In fact, Mr. Bloomberg defended the recently released statistics detailing the scope of the stop and frisk program and damned the notion that law enforcement is illegally singling in on minorities in the Big Apple.

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

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

Earlier this year, the NYPD released a report showing that of the 685,724 stops made by the force in 2011, 87 percent of the people questioned were either black or Latino, while fewer than one-in-ten of those stopped were white. During that same span, however, only around half of the city’s total population was either black or Hispanic, leading many to say the department was picking and choosing who to stop on the street.

Citing that study, Think Progress acknowledged Friday that “Young black men between the ages of 14 and 24 were stopped 106 percent of the time — as in, there were more stops of young black men than the entire population of young black men.”

When the Public Advocate went over data for the NYPD’s 2012 statistics, it found that while 84 percent of those stopped were black or Latino, the likelihood that an African American would yield a weapon during a stop-and-frisk was half that of white New Yorkers stopped on the street. When it came to discovering contraband, cops were a third more likely to find illegal items on the person of a white suspect.

Upon the City Council decision to implement new measures to ensure the stop-and-frisk program is put under increased scrutiny, Councilwoman Letitia James (D-Brooklyn) said, “Today, we are striking a blow against a practice which has become a perverse rite of passage for all young men of color in the City of New York.”

“It will do nothing to handcuff or prevent the Police Department from ensuring that all of us are safe,” James added.

The council also decided this week to more broadly define what the city constitutes as “racial profiling,” but Mr. Bloomberg said he plans to veto both that ruling and the movement to install an inspector general to oversee the stop-and-frisk program. Shortly after Bloomberg spoke on WOR, the mayor’s office issued a statement to the website Politicker explaining that while minorities make up 87 percent of the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk cases, blacks and Latinos are responsible for more than 90 percent of the murders in the city.

RW - This is all about equality. All races are have their right to be secure violated equally. Are New Yorkers so stupid as to put up with such a blatant violation of their natural rights by a jew mayor with such equanimity? If the city were nuked tomorrow then for sure it wouldn't put a dent in the patriot population. But rather than deal with the police state mentality being put in day to day practice the discussion is an argument over which group is being violated more than the other.
Title: Low-level arrests surged under Bloomberg’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy
Post by: Rudi Jan on September 06, 2013, 10:47:56 AM
Low-level arrests surged under Bloomberg’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy

Published time: September 06, 2013 04:06
source: (

Reuters / Brendan McDermid

The number of arrests made for low-level violations in New York City grew exponentially over the past decade, a result of the so-called “zero tolerance” policy that sought to prevent people from committing future crimes by arresting them preemptively.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has spent much of his final year in office defending the city’s stop-and-frisk policy, which a federal judge ruled was unconstitutional in August. But while he and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly fended off allegations of stop-and-frisk’s inherent racial discrimination, complaints about severe policing have largely stayed out of the headlines.

Nearly 90,000 additional people were arrested in 2010 compared to when Bloomberg took office in 2002, according to new numbers published by Then, two years later, 60,000 more people were arrested than the decade prior.

“The majority of those people were picked up for public urination, turnstile jumping, drinking on the street, smoking pot and disorderly conduct, and then put through the criminal justice system,” wrote criminal justice journalist Murray Weiss. “As the number of arrests for minor crimes rose dramatically, arrests for serious crimes – such as rape, robbery and assault – declined roughly 10 percent during the same period.”

Former New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton introduced the policy during his tenure in the 1990s, when New York was struggling to shed the crime image it earned over the previous three decades.

Despite criticism from civil liberties advocates, Bloomberg continued that philosophy, cracking down on relatively minor offenses with the idea that an arrest was preventing an inevitable future crime.

“Does this approach sweep up some criminals? Yes. Does it keep them from doing something worse? Probably,” a former police officer told journalist Weiss. “But is it worth what it is costing the city in terms of overtime, police-community relations, and clogging the court system? I don’t think so.” 

Arrests peaked in 2010, with 422,982 people taken into custody, although 383,869 of those were for low-level offenses. Court statistics indicate that judges do not take many of the “zero tolerance” arrests seriously, throwing out approximately 10 percent of New York’s quality-of-life arrests without taking any court action, according to

Crime has fallen 30 percent during Bloomberg’s tenure, although he and Kelly have been criticized for crediting stop-and-frisk and instructing officers to be overzealous. Violent offenses – murder, rape, and robbery – remain a concerning problem in cities, but such crime has overall fallen in the US for five straight years, leading many to wonder whether New York’s policies are particularly effective or simply part of a national trend.

“At the end of the day, crime is going to go down, and there is a validation to the overly zealous approach because it is a secret to the success,” a former NYPD tactician told Weiss, later adding that the policies can easily be manipulated by lawmakers. “You have to constantly re-evaluate what you are doing and ask, ‘Are you getting the right persons?’”

RW -  “But is it worth what it is costing the city in terms of overtime, police-community relations, and clogging the court system?"

Yeah it is worth it to those who do not produce. It's the legal community scraping the bottom of the barrel for revenue which is passed onto them through taxpayer funded legal aid. The police benefit since it lets them hire more police also at taxpayer expense. The judges also benefit at taxpayers expense since they would be out of a job except for this clogging of the court system. The whole thing is a big make work project and it's in play in every municipality in North America. and all that money being sucked up by the system means less money for real goods and services for households. Basically all these non-productive cops, judges, lawyers, jailers and legal personnel are a parasitic economy draining the community while destroying lives.