U-M Professor: War on Crime Fueled Detroit's Decline

[Honky Tonk]

Yeah it would be better if they were not overly aggressive a@@h@les but I understand their distancing stance because in 2 seconds the situation could turn ugly and that could mean the end of their life.

Yeah, I totally agree with that part. I still get pulled over occasionally, even @ my age. I keep both hands on top of the steering wheel until I'm told to roll down the window, one hand. The younger the cop, the more cautious I am. A lot of would-be Wyatt Earp's out there itching to try out that new Glock 26. It's a difficult situation for both sides.

[vetalalumni]

I'm curious how you can cling to that notion, when jobs in the auto plant were numerous and both black and white workers made the same?
Now getting a job in the auto plant was hard because of nepotism but once in the workers made the union wage.

...

Didn't increased hiring requirements among a smaller pool of available jobs also make it more difficult to get hired at a given auto plant?

[GMan]

Didn't increased hiring requirements among a smaller pool of available jobs also make it more difficult to get hired at a given auto plant?

What increased hiring requirements?
Did they raise the education level requirements? Was it the drug testing?
How about just showing up to work on time and doing ones job?

As jobs become more complex, i.e. working among automation, the requirement to interact with the machines and be cognizant of ones surroundings is important. It promotes a safe work environment.
Employers also don't want single function job classes.

How do we engage the pool of remaining workers to make themselves marketable for this shrinking pool? Tax breaks for education? Drug rehab programs?

Further more, why would we want to increase immigration that will also compete for this shrinking job market?

Questions, questions, questions.....

[Wesley Mouch]

No, it's not better, but they don't have to act like assholes because they're doing their job either.

What I think we have is a police force that has a certain number of assholes. And they may be racist. They may act on their racism. That is unacceptable.

But what's also unacceptable is the blanket assumption that cops are racist assholes, and thus all cops need to be sent to the re-education camp to get repaired.

The 'war on crime' harmed Detroit argument suggests that the 'war on crime' was the problem -- when most people believe that the real problem is the underlying crime that made the 'war' necessary.

Did crime harm Detroit. You bet.

Did the way crime was fought hard Detroit? Yes.

Is the best way to build trust between cops and citizens to call cops racist. No.

[GMan]

What I think we have is a police force that has a certain number of assholes. And they may be racist. They may act on their racism. That is unacceptable.

But what's also unacceptable is the blanket assumption that cops are racist assholes, and thus all cops need to be sent to the re-education camp to get repaired.

The 'war on crime' harmed Detroit argument suggests that the 'war on crime' was the problem -- when most people believe that the real problem is the underlying crime that made the 'war' necessary.

Did crime harm Detroit. You bet.

Did the way crime was fought hard Detroit? Yes.

Is the best way to build trust between cops and citizens to call cops racist. No.

Spot on Wesley.

[vetalalumni]

Sadness for Officer Myron Jarrett. May he rest in peace. Regards to his family.

[Zacha341]

^^^ Indeed. What a tragedy! What was going on in the mind of suspect Steven Patrick Guzina? He is the owner of a couple of local restaurants.

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/loca...14411852-story

[Cincinnati_Kid]

^^^ Indeed. What a tragedy! What was going on in the mind of suspect Steven Patrick Guzina? He is the owner of a couple of local restaurants.

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/loca...14411852-story

It was reported on the news, that he has a drug problem. He was in that particular neighborhood, trying to purchase some. Also was stated that he isn't involved with the family business anymore, because of this.

[noise]

Yeah, I totally agree with that part. I still get pulled over occasionally, even @ my age. I keep both hands on top of the steering wheel until I'm told to roll down the window, one hand. The younger the cop, the more cautious I am. A lot of would-be Wyatt Earp's out there itching to try out that new Glock 26. It's a difficult situation for both sides.

You know, it's funny...I'm under 40 and I've been pulled over once in the last 10+ years.

I will admit to speeding pretty much constantly. For six of the last 10 years, I commuted 90 miles one-way to work.

I have never gotten a ticket. I am white. I drive a CR-V [[and before that, a Subaru).

[Honky Tonk]

You know, it's funny...I'm under 40 and I've been pulled over once in the last 10+ years.

I will admit to speeding pretty much constantly. For six of the last 10 years, I commuted 90 miles one-way to work.

I have never gotten a ticket. I am white. I drive a CR-V [[and before that, a Subaru).

You're right, that is funny.

[noise]

You're right, that is funny.

I am an emboldened criminal.

And I sold my full-size truck due to the commute. That's not funny. It's sad.

[vetalalumni]

Yeah I've been profiled and stopped too. Police have to act towards you with distrust and be on their gaurd for their protection. And yes, don't expect an apology when they don't find anything.

Now is it better if they don't make an effort to stop crimes such as drug trafficing? That is what I seem to be hearing.

Law enforcement can and should observe and detect comprehensively. Someone who travels the same route daily without interacting with the visible dealers should not be detained while the dealers are operating nearby. Something is wrong if I can easily detect the dealers and law enforcement can't or won't.

[Honky Tonk]

Law enforcement can and should observe and detect comprehensively. Someone who travels the same route daily without interacting with the visible dealers should not be detained while the dealers are operating nearby. Something is wrong if I can easily detect the dealers and law enforcement can't or won't.

Exactly. One of my biggest pet peeves living in Detroit, outside the green zone, is the lack of, or selective, policing.

[GMan]

Law enforcement can and should observe and detect comprehensively. Someone who travels the same route daily without interacting with the visible dealers should not be detained while the dealers are operating nearby. Something is wrong if I can easily detect the dealers and law enforcement can't or won't.

You bring up a good point about being vested in the neighborhood that they patrol.
If someone has a vested interest in the neighborhood and perhaps lives in said neighborhood, they should be pretty in tune with dealings afoot in the hood.
DPD used to have a residency requirement and neighborhoods with resident police presence where the last to decline. Copper Canyon, the Parkway, ect...
That requirement was ruled illegal and with an additional income tax on residents and poor services to boot, those officers and others with the means that could move out did.

Now flash ahead to the present neighborhoods where the police come in to their precient to do their jobs and try to make it out alive. They see the same interactions day after day and respond to calls. Then they get no co-operation from the neighbors calling the police to help, because of fear of retaliation.

What are police supposed to do then? They try to deal with it but their hands are tied. If they are aggressive they are labeled the enemy and the perpetrator is labeled the "victim." The insanity makes them yearn for the end of their shift so they go home to the safety of their stable community on the outskirts of the city and escape the madness. But that's just my opinion.

[Wesley Mouch]

Law enforcement can and should observe and detect comprehensively. Someone who travels the same route daily without interacting with the visible dealers should not be detained while the dealers are operating nearby. Something is wrong if I can easily detect the dealers and law enforcement can't or won't.

Law enforcement isn't easy. Exactly what criteria would you use to decide who is deserving of 'detention'?

The whole idea behind 'stop and frisk' was to give the officers the ability to 'stop and frisk' people acting in what appeared to be a menacing way. It gave officers a tool to be proactive with drug dealers who were operating in the open. We have decided to take that tool away because it was sometimes being abused.

In the end, the officers have to make judgements. Decide who to 'detain'. Who to 'stop'. If we take that power from them and make every 'stop' require a ream of paper and a report to the ACLU [[see NYC and Judge Sundelin), we are getting what we asked for. A police force that's collectively discouraged from the kind of judgement you request.

See Ferguson Effect and the current increase in crimes for more info.

[canuck]

Law enforcement isn't easy. Exactly what criteria would you use to decide who is deserving of 'detention'?

The whole idea behind 'stop and frisk' was to give the officers the ability to 'stop and frisk' people acting in what appeared to be a menacing way. It gave officers a tool to be proactive with drug dealers who were operating in the open. We have decided to take that tool away because it was sometimes being abused.

In the end, the officers have to make judgements. Decide who to 'detain'. Who to 'stop'. If we take that power from them and make every 'stop' require a ream of paper and a report to the ACLU [[see NYC and Judge Sundelin), we are getting what we asked for. A police force that's collectively discouraged from the kind of judgement you request.

See Ferguson Effect and the current increase in crimes for more info.

I just came back from a twelve day trip to Budapest last Friday, and your opinion sounds like the kind of bullshit the Russki culture heaped on Hungarians for 45 years. Jesus loves you more than you will ever know Wesley.

[erikd]

Young talked tough, but in the end his force didn't hold public safety. Zealous [[perhaps too zealous) cops like Nevers/Budzyn were hung out to dry -- and while that may have felt good for the self-righteous, it had an effect on the rest of the cops. It was version 1 of the Ferguson Effect. Tell cops they aren't wanted because a few went too far -- and what you get is mayhem by a whole lot of criminals. I'd rather have a few innocent folks stopped and frisked, then let criminals run the show. It seems that its being proven today that Ferguson etc. is resulting in more criminal activity. Deny that stats, if you wish. Explain them away. It'll make you feel better. And who cares what those who have to live in bad 'hoods think or need. As long as you feel better.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he 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."

Let's be clear on what you are saying here. You are advocating for the elimination of the Fourth Amendment, and supporting a system where American citizens should be subject to unreasonable and unwarranted searches by the police.

I absolutely disagree with your opinion on this issue, and your ridiculous claim that people who support the Fourth Amendment are "self-righteous" or just want to "feel better" about themselves.

...or maybe the founding fathers were just a bunch of bleeding-heart softies who only put that Fourth Amendment crap in the Constitution because they were "self-righteous" and thought it would make them "feel better."

[bust]

The New York Times analyzed the efficacy of stop-and-frisk [[or its lack thereof):

What Donald Trump Got Wrong on Stop-and-Frisk
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/ny...and-frisk.html

Some key points from the article:

New York City began to drastically curtail the use of stop-and-frisk in 2012 under pressure from the ACLU and other defenders of our constitutional protection against unlawful search and seizure. Some, such as the New York Post editorial board, warned this would lead to "more blood in the streets." But the opposite occurred. Stops have gone down 97% since their peak in 2011, and murder has gone down 32% along with it.

Meanwhile, it wasn't just "a few innocent folks" who were stopped. New York City police made more than 685,000 stops in 2011 alone. WNYC created a map that illustrates how many stops occurred block per block. Well over 100 blocks averaged more than 400 stops per year:

Stop & Frisk | Guns
https://project.wnyc.org/stop-frisk-guns

The New York Times reports 90% of those stopped were young black or latino men who committed no crime. In the few cases when a stop led to an arrest the vast majority were for marijuana possession. Arrests for marijuana possession soared to as many as 50,000 per year -- approximately 1 out of every 8 arrests citywide. 86% of those arrested for marijuana possession were black or hispanic, despite research that shows young white men are more likely to use it. 70% of those arrested had no prior convictions.

Ok, but the point of all this was to confiscate illegal guns. How did that work out? WNYC reports only about 0.1% of stops resulted in the seizure of a gun. In fact, most gun seizures occurred outside of the stop-and-frisk hot spots. WNYC plots gun seizures on their stop-and-frisk map:

Map: NYPD Finds Most Guns Outside Stop-and-Frisk Hotspots
http://www.wnyc.org/story/222809-wny...and-frisk-less/

It looks like the net effect of New York's stop-and-frisk program was to run tens or hundreds of thousands of black and brown young men through the criminal justice system for minor offenses. It's difficult to find a benefit in the crime statistics. Meanwhile the harm was not limited to those young men and their families. Stop-and-frisk policing created a great deal of distrust and animosity against the police in the community.

Civil society rests with the people. Law enforcement is supplementary, and can only do so much. There are of course plenty of good people even in neighborhoods most affected by crime. But when policing becomes so aggressive it hauls many innocent folks into its net it doesn't just hurt the community, it's counterproductive for law enforcement. Fear discourages cooperation. We'd benefit from more cooperation, from all around.

Community distrust of police became so bad in 2013 Kenneth Thompson defeated a 6-term incumbent to become Brooklyn's District Attorney largely on a platform to rein in aggressive police tactics. He accused his opponent as complicit in the excesses of the stop-and-frisk policy and promised to effectively decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana [[with exceptions) so fewer otherwise law abiding people would get caught up in the system.

The New York Times agreed with his approach:

Safer Era Tests Wisdom of ‘Broken Windows’ Focus on Minor Crime
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/ny...york-city.html

Broken Windows, Broken Lives
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/26/opinion/broken-windows-broken-lives.html

Crime statistics in the years that have followed seem to agree too.

Broken windows policing may be one of those things that sounds good in theory but can be problematic in practice. It killed Eric Garner and led to the protests that followed. It should not be implemented too broadly nor taken too far.

[canuck]

Excellent breakdown, bust.

Think of all young black and Latino men's problems with the law, their dissociation from family., society, opportunities is an obvious outcome of all this.

The racism is alive and well and the rage begets more violence.

The Ferguson effect, indeed.

[Wesley Mouch]

The New York Times analyzed the efficacy of stop-and-frisk [[or its lack thereof):

What Donald Trump Got Wrong on Stop-and-Frisk
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/ny...and-frisk.html

Some key points from the article:

New York City began to drastically curtail the use of stop-and-frisk in 2012 under pressure from the ACLU and other defenders of our constitutional protection against unlawful search and seizure. Some, such as the New York Post editorial board, warned this would lead to "more blood in the streets." But the opposite occurred. Stops have gone down 97% since their peak in 2011, and murder has gone down 32% along with it.

Meanwhile, it wasn't just "a few innocent folks" who were stopped. New York City police made more than 685,000 stops in 2011 alone. WNYC created a map that illustrates how many stops occurred block per block. Well over 100 blocks averaged more than 400 stops per year:

Stop & Frisk | Guns
https://project.wnyc.org/stop-frisk-guns

The New York Times reports 90% of those stopped were young black or latino men who committed no crime. In the few cases when a stop led to an arrest the vast majority were for marijuana possession. Arrests for marijuana possession soared to as many as 50,000 per year -- approximately 1 out of every 8 arrests citywide. 86% of those arrested for marijuana possession were black or hispanic, despite research that shows young white men are more likely to use it. 70% of those arrested had no prior convictions.

Ok, but the point of all this was to confiscate illegal guns. How did that work out? WNYC reports only about 0.1% of stops resulted in the seizure of a gun. In fact, most gun seizures occurred outside of the stop-and-frisk hot spots. WNYC plots gun seizures on their stop-and-frisk map:

Map: NYPD Finds Most Guns Outside Stop-and-Frisk Hotspots
http://www.wnyc.org/story/222809-wny...and-frisk-less/

It looks like the net effect of New York's stop-and-frisk program was to run tens or hundreds of thousands of black and brown young men through the criminal justice system for minor offenses. It's difficult to find a benefit in the crime statistics. Meanwhile the harm was not limited to those young men and their families. Stop-and-frisk policing created a great deal of distrust and animosity against the police in the community.

Civil society rests with the people. Law enforcement is supplementary, and can only do so much. There are of course plenty of good people even in neighborhoods most affected by crime. But when policing becomes so aggressive it hauls many innocent folks into its net it doesn't just hurt the community, it's counterproductive for law enforcement. Fear discourages cooperation. We'd benefit from more cooperation, from all around.

Community distrust of police became so bad in 2013 Kenneth Thompson defeated a 6-term incumbent to become Brooklyn's District Attorney largely on a platform to rein in aggressive police tactics. He accused his opponent as complicit in the excesses of the stop-and-frisk policy and promised to effectively decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana [[with exceptions) so fewer otherwise law abiding people would get caught up in the system.

The New York Times agreed with his approach:

Safer Era Tests Wisdom of ‘Broken Windows’ Focus on Minor Crime
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/ny...york-city.html

Broken Windows, Broken Lives
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/26/opinion/broken-windows-broken-lives.html

Crime statistics in the years that have followed seem to agree too.

Broken windows policing may be one of those things that sounds good in theory but can be problematic in practice. It killed Eric Garner and led to the protests that followed. It should not be implemented too broadly nor taken too far.

You might also consider reading this from the NYTimes, where Neil Gross says 'maybe':

Is There a Ferguson Effect? [[maybe yes, maybe no)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/op...on-effect.html

Broken Windows can be problematic in practice. But what's also problematic is the assault on cops -- attacking all cops because there are a few rotten apples.

Your [[and the Times) stats are misleading:

685,000 stop x 0.1% with guns = 685 guns found on criminals. Success.

400 stops in one block -- for 100 blocks in NYC. Do you not believe that there are 100 blocks in NYC where drug dealers and other criminals hang out? Just more than one stop a day on these blocks doesn't seem like a problem to me.

But I agree. We should be more vigilant on police abuse.

And Eric Gardner wasn't killed by stop & frisk. He died because he resisted arrest for selling illegal cigarettes. But if you prefer a world where criminals get away with 'petty crime', give it a try.

As to murder rate declines in post stop & frisk... you might check out Chicago as well.

[bust]

Great news! Crime continues to plummet in NYC. This is happening even as since 2012 the controversial stop and frisk policy was drastically curtailed under legal pressure. And police have almost completely abandoned the policy the past four years under De Blasio. Not only is it unethical and almost certainly unconstitutional to indiscriminately intimidate, harass, and jeopardize so many young black and latino young men, it seems it does not lead to lower crime rates. Ending this policy has been a win win!

What other conditions in New York can explain the plummeting crime rates? Opportunity? Optimism? A greater sense of inclusion?

Crime in New York City Plunges to a Level Not Seen Since the 1950s
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/27/n...rime-2017.html

[Wesley Mouch]

Great news! Crime continues to plummet in NYC. This is happening even as since 2012 the controversial stop and frisk policy was drastically curtailed under legal pressure. And police have almost completely abandoned the policy the past four years under De Blasio. Not only is it unethical and almost certainly unconstitutional to indiscriminately intimidate, harass, and jeopardize so many young black and latino young men, it seems it does not lead to lower crime rates. Ending this policy has been a win win!

What other conditions in New York can explain the plummeting crime rates? Opportunity? Optimism? A greater sense of inclusion?

Crime in New York City Plunges to a Level Not Seen Since the 1950s
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/27/n...rime-2017.html

It is indeed great news. As George Bush once said, "mission accomplished".

I don't quite see that ending help for poor residents is the sole cause of continued decline. But it is great to see.

[Richard]

Great news! Crime continues to plummet in NYC. This is happening even as since 2012 the controversial stop and frisk policy was drastically curtailed under legal pressure. And police have almost completely abandoned the policy the past four years under De Blasio. Not only is it unethical and almost certainly unconstitutional to indiscriminately intimidate, harass, and jeopardize so many young black and latino young men, it seems it does not lead to lower crime rates. Ending this policy has been a win win!

What other conditions in New York can explain the plummeting crime rates? Opportunity? Optimism? A greater sense of inclusion?

Crime in New York City Plunges to a Level Not Seen Since the 1950s
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/27/n...rime-2017.html

What about rising rents push the lower income out,Cabrini green in Chicago had the highest crime rate in the city,until they tore it down,then the erea became one of the safest parts in the city.

They are just moving numbers around and not really solving the core issues.

[bust]

Oh give it up Wesley.

Poor residents of New York overwhelmingly oppose the stop-and-frisk policy. They are tired of feeling like perpetual suspects. It was almost certainly the biggest beef they had with the police. See below.

It was also one of the main reasons why Brooklynites, home not only to some hipsters, but to a much larger poor population, voted overwhelmingly to elect Kenneth Thompson as their DA. He defeated a longtime incumbent in an enormous 3 to 1 landslide victory. Twice. One of the central planks of his campaign platform was to sensibly reduce the use of stop-and-frisk. He, and every one else in the city, knew it unfairly targeted the black and latino communities.

Thompson, in a Politico article:

"“When you have excessive use of stop-and-frisk, you create bitterness in certain communities,” Thompson said, mentioning specifically the neighborhoods of Brownsville and East New York, which he said felt “disenchanted [with] law enforcement” and “targeted.”

“That disenchantment helped create the conditions for the rise of gun violence in certain neighborhoods,” Thompson said, “because communities didn’t trust the police and prosecutors enough to work with them.”"

Meanwhile, you can oppose misuse of stop-and-frisk and still support the police. You can even credit them for reductions in crime. The Politico article:

"“Thompson also praised the “great work of the NYPD,” saying it was responsible for the record low number of homicides.

“We have to support our police,” he said. “Something is being done right.”"

Police can even get behind a DA who wants to curtail the stop-and-frisk policy. In New York they did just that. The Police Union backed Kenneth Thompson in his bid for DA. From another Politico article:

"The endorsement came as something of a surprise, given the differences between Thompson and the union on the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy.

Thompson made a stop-and-frisk a key issue in the primary, accusing [long-time incumbent DA] Hynes of being silent on an issue that damaged relationships between the borough's black community and law enforcement, and he outlined a plan to assign prosecutors who will police precincts in East New York and Brownsville in order to keep an eye on questionable arrests."

Meanwhile, not De Blasio, not Thompson, nor I am advocating never stopping and frisking a suspect. It must be done for just cause. With reasonable suspicion. It should not be used indiscriminately. Not stupidly. Politico article:

"Thompson said he supported it as a crime-fighting tool “when it’s done the right way,” even as the tactic had been overused during the Bloomberg years.”"

Until recently, and perhaps not always recently, it was far too often done the wrong way in New York.

Under Bloomberg, and his Police Commissioner Ray Kelley, police had a quota requiring the number of stop-and-frisk searches they conduct. Here's New York’s Police Union President, Pat Lynch, when he endorsed Thompson [[Politico article):

"“Stop-question-and-frisk should be used, and it should be used constitutionally, not based on a number,” said Lynch at the endorsement announcement. “The worst thing you can do for a police department is make it a numbers game, or a revenue getter.”"

But stop-and-frisk has far too often been used indiscriminately. Too often stupidly. Listen to some real New Yorkers who have experienced it up close [[Reuters article):

"Telly Hudgins has been stopped and frisked by the police too many times to count in the Brownsville, New York, public housing project where he lives. One occasion sticks in his memory. “I had my pajamas on and my slippers on and I‘m emptying my garbage” at the trash chute. “They asked me for ID to prove I lived there. Who walks around in their pajamas with ID?” asked the black, 35-year-old counselor for the mentally handicapped. He says he complained about the search and was issued a summons for disorderly conduct.

Residents tell stories of cops peering down from rooftops, monitoring movement with a ubiquitous network of security cameras, patrolling halls and occupying lobbies.

In interviews conducted in the past few weeks, many Brownsville public housing residents claim they are regularly questioned, ticketed, often frisked and sometimes arrested on little or no pretense. They say police can be abusive, unnecessarily aggressive and indiscriminate. To these residents, civil liberties have withered with declining crime rates.

Last spring, years after the pajama incident, Hudgins stepped out of an elevator in his building as a pair of cops were getting in. As it often does on Mondays, Hudgins said, the elevator smelled of alcohol. Police stopped him, saying they suspected he was drinking alcohol from the cup in his hand. They insisted he hand over his drink, sniffed it, and told him it smelled like alcohol, Hudgins said. No, he insisted; it was a mix of iced tea and lemonade. There in the lobby of his own building, at the age of 34 and with no criminal record, Hudgins was issued two tickets - one for disorderly conduct and another for having an alcoholic beverage in an open container.

Hudgins had had enough. He filed a formal complaint with the city’s Civilian Complaint Review Board. Both summonses were eventually dismissed, according to court records provided by Hudgins. “You can be stopped on any given day, for anything,” he said. “It’s humiliating.”

Police patrolling public housing enforce housing regulations, which dictate that to be inside one of its buildings you must either live there or be visiting someone. Among the almost 600,000 stops police made in or around city housing in the past six years, they conducted more based on suspicion of trespassing than for any other suspected crime, according to the Reuters analysis.

Vanessa Chandler, 47, who is black, said she has lived in city housing on Brownsville’s Sutter Avenue since she was a child, and that aggressive policing in the area is intrusive.

“If I go back to my building in the morning because I forgot my bus pass, they are on you with, ‘Why did you go into that building and back out again?’ Or if I walk outside to check the weather and go back in, it’s the same thing,” she said. “I mean, don’t you step outside to check the weather where you live, officer?”

Residents acknowledge the need for a strong police presence to counter violent crime. This is, after all, a place where many adults say they don’t leave their homes after dark. Still, the way in which the stop-and-frisk program is used weighs on them heavily.

“It’s not the stop-and-frisks that we’re upset about,” said Jay Bradley, 49, another black woman. “It’s the stupidity of the stops.”"

That comes from a great long form analysis of the situation. I suggest reading the rest of it too.

Curtailing stop-and-frisk has not ended help for poor people. Not Thompson, not De Blasio, not I, not Pat Lynch ever advocated that. On the contrary. Let's help people better. Let's fix our problems. Let's fight crime. Let's show some humanity. Let's not counter-productively waste resources. Let's not harm people and claim it's to help them. Enough of that.

By the way, whatever illusions anyone has to the contrary, there are still plenty of poor people in New York.

The most recent official data on poverty from the city is from 2015. 19.9% of New Yorkers were living in poverty. 44.2% were living in "near-poverty". The biggest population of people living in poverty and near-poverty live in Brooklyn, where Kenneth Thompson was overwhelmingly elected DA.







Sources:

Ken Thompson talks 'legacy of disgrace,' increase in shootings
https://www.politico.com/states/new-...ootings-016251

Police union gives to Ken Thompson, despite their differences
https://www.politico.com/states/new-...erences-000000

Insight: Under siege: "Stop and frisk" polarizes New York
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...86205Q20120703

New York City Government Poverty Measure 2005–2015
An Annual Report from the Office of the Mayor
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportuni...as2017-WEB.pdf

[Wesley Mouch]

bust, I agree with much of your post. Where we differ is how we settle issues.

I believe that reform of S&F was possible, without tossing out much of the good efforts that were delivering results for poor people in high-crime neighborhoods. You and clearly many others have become fond of imposing rules on the police. We both agree that S&F as it was being done in NYC needed to be done better.

Neither approach is right nor wrong. The end results will be in the stats. And NYC is excellent in crime stats.

I do hope that NYC crime keeps falling, even as DiBlasio reduces the focus on minor crimes [[turnstile jumping, spitting, jaywalking, illegal vending, etc.).

Crime is on the downswing in NYC, to be sure. Stopping S&F and Quality of Life policing [[broken windows if you will) probably won't end the slide. But I believe it pulls in the wrong direction.

Let's celebrate the good stats together.