Before former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg threw his hat into the 2020 presidential race, he defended the New York Police Department&#8217;s use of &#8220;stop, question and frisk&#8221; policing. At a United States Naval Academy&#8217;s 2019 Leadership Conference, Bloomberg said, &#8220;We focused on keeping kids from going through the correctional system &#8230; kids who walked around looking like they might have a gun, remove the gun from their pockets and stop it.&#8221; He claimed that as a result of his policy, New York&#8217;s murder rate fell from 650 a year to 300 the year he left office.
In the cases of Terry v. Ohio, Sibron v. New York, and Peters v. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1968, granted limited approval to officers to stop, question and frisk, even though they lacked probable cause for an arrest, if the officer believed the subject to be dangerous. The Court&#8217;s decision made suspicion of danger to an officer grounds for a &#8220;reasonable search.&#8221;
The stop, question and frisk policy has taken on racial overtones because most of the people stopped are black men. Let&#8217;s look at the numbers. Last year, NYPD data showed that 93% of suspects arrested for murder were black or Hispanic. Ninety-six percent of those nabbed in shootings were also minorities. Eighty-eight percent of New York City&#8217;s homicide victims were black or Hispanic as were 96% of shooting victims. While these percentages have been roughly the same for decades, New York police have brought the absolute number of crimes, including homicides, way down from its 1990 peak at 2,245 to 289 homicides in 2018. Since blacks and Hispanics are the major victims of homicide, as a result of the NYPD&#8217;s proactive response to crime, possibly tens of thousands of blacks are living today who would otherwise be dead.
For a law-abiding black person to be stopped, questioned and frisked — in a word or two, be racially profiled — is truly insulting. However, to analyze the policy, let&#8217;s look at the origins of racial profiling or any other kind of profiling. First of all, policemen are neither mind readers nor are they equipped with X-ray vision. That means good policing requires learning how to use an easily observed physical characteristic as a guess or proxy for some other difficult-to-observe characteristic. Thus, the reason people profile is that information is costly and they seek methods to economize on information costs. One way to do that is through profiling.
The reality is that race and other behavioral characteristics are correlated, including criminal behavior. That fact does not dispel the insult, embarrassment, anger and hurt a law-abiding black person might feel when being stopped by police, being watched in stores, being passed by taxi drivers, standing at traffic lights and hearing car door locks activated or being refused delivery by merchants who fear for their safety in his neighborhood.
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a politician in pursuit of his own agenda. President Donald Trump is also a politician in pursuit of his own agenda. Both will deny their support for and talk down the policy of stop, question and frisk in an effort to curry favor with black voters. Most Bloomberg and Trump supporters don&#8217;t live under the horrible conditions that so many blacks live under in high crime cities like Baltimore, St. Louis, Chicago and Detroit. Black people must ask what needs to be done to stop criminals from preying on them and making so many of their communities economic wastelands. If stop, question and frisk can contribute to that goal, so be it. They need not listen to politicians, academics, talking heads on the news and others.
I&#8217;ll add that even if the police, intimidated by leftists, are not doing their job to safeguard black residents in high crime communities, that doesn&#8217;t mean that black people should not organize to take independent measures to protect themselves.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

NYPD car

WILLIAMS: Stop, Question And Frisk

Crime

Donald Trump

Michael Bloomberg

Police

Race

Stop-and-Frisk

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the founder of the pro-gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety, once stated he didn&#8217;t think that young minority males should be able to own guns.
Moms Demand Action, which is part of the Everytown organization, has been claiming the National Rifle Association (NRA) is race-baiting:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NRAUnhinged?src=hash">#NRAUnhinged</a>: The NRA continues to race-bait its supporters in new NRATV clip <a href="https://t.co/ajDVOSQYqX">https://t.co/ajDVOSQYqX</a> <a href="https://t.co/FEbozS9KtU">pic.twitter.com/FEbozS9KtU</a>
&#8212; Moms Demand Action (@MomsDemand) <a href="https://twitter.com/MomsDemand/status/888432679313707008">July 21, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
NRA spokeswoman and radio host Dana Loesch, in her usual fiery way, took Moms Demand and Everytown to task over the issue of race-baiting:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Still waiting for <a href="https://twitter.com/Everytown">@everytown</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/MomsDemand">@momsdemand</a> to answer if they endorse their founder&#8217;s support of this racist tactic &#8212;&gt; <a href="https://t.co/4DcbimwBGe">https://t.co/4DcbimwBGe</a>
&#8212; Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) <a href="https://twitter.com/DLoesch/status/888470692836061184">July 21, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
FLASHBACK: <a href="https://twitter.com/Everytown">@Everytown</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/MomsDemand">@MomsDemand</a> founder fights to block video release of his racist remarks <a href="https://t.co/5IxKEIYpNr">https://t.co/5IxKEIYpNr</a>
&#8212; Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) <a href="https://twitter.com/DLoesch/status/888471075016761344">July 21, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
FYI, <a href="https://twitter.com/Everytown">@everytown</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/MomsDemand">@MomsDemand</a> have confirmed that they support this stop and frisk tactic &#8212;&gt; <a href="https://t.co/4DcbimwBGe">https://t.co/4DcbimwBGe</a>
&#8212; Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) <a href="https://twitter.com/DLoesch/status/888472950361526277">July 21, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
The links Loesch tweeted out point to a speech Bloomberg gave at the Aspen Institute in February 2015, where according to <a href="http://www.aspentimes.com/news/michael-bloomberg-blocks-footage-of-aspen-institute-appearance/#pq=yHEjIc">The Aspen Times</a> Bloomberg said that &#8220;police should seize guns from male minorities between ages 15 and 25.&#8221;
&#8220;These kids think they&#8217;re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed,&#8221; said Bloomberg. &#8220;So they just don&#8217;t have any longterm focus or anything. It&#8217;s a joke to have a gun. It&#8217;s a joke to pull a trigger.&#8221;
Bloomberg also stated the need to &#8220;throw them up against the wall and frisk them&#8221; and that in New York City &#8220;we put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods.&#8221;
&#8220;That&#8217;s where all the crime is,&#8221; Bloomberg said.
Bloomberg actually asked the Aspen Institute not to release his speech to the public, and the organization grudgingly abided by his request.
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association President Tom King excoriated Bloomberg&#8217;s comments: (<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/13/michael-bloomberg-blocks-video-of-pro-gun-control-talk-from-being-published/">H/T:</a> Daily Caller)
<blockquote>
&#8220;Mayor Bloomberg&#8217;s statement that black males should not be allowed to have guns echos similar sentiments made by southern white supremacists in the 19th century,&#8221; Tom King, the association&#8217;s president, said in a statement, according to the Washington Times. &#8220;So-called &#8216;Black Codes&#8217; were enacted by various southern states to discriminate against black Americans and maintain the system of white supremacy that made slavery possible. These included restrictions on firearms possession.&#8221;
&#8220;If a politician said this about anything other than guns, the mainstream media would be all over them,&#8221; King added. &#8220;Michael Bloomberg isn&#8217;t just any politician, he is the leading voice for gun control in America. He should be held accountable for this slander.&#8221;
</blockquote>
Everytown and Moms Demand should take a nice long in the look mirror before they accuse the NRA of race-baiting.
<a href="https://twitter.com/bandlersbanter">Follow Aaron Bandler on Twitter.</a>

Michael Bloomberg Once Said That He Didn’t Think Young Minority Males Should Have Guns, Wants Them To Be Subject To Stop-And-Frisk

Dana Loesch

Gun Control

Last week, the Libertarian Party of Indiana posted a meme on its official Facebook page equating stop-and-frisk to the Nazi policy of harassing Jews during the Holocaust. Last night, the national Libertarian Party endorsed the former&#8217;s assertion.
<iframe width="500" height="438" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Stop-and-frisk has been at the center of ongoing debates for the last few years, most recently <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-09-27/neither-trump-clinton-exactly-right-about-stop-and-frisk">during the first presidential debate</a> between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The policy&#8217;s purpose, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/17/does-stop-and-frisk-reduce-crime/to-see-its-value-see-how-crime-rose-elsewhere">according to Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute</a>, was to deter criminals from carrying guns in order to curb gun-related crimes. Dennis Smith, a professor at New York University, has also mentioned that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/17/does-stop-and-frisk-reduce-crime/stop-and-frisk-has-lowered-crime-in-other-cities">stop-and-frisk was effective in other major cities</a>, including Los Angeles and Philadelphia. However, a federal court in Manhattan determined that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/05/theres-a-lot-of-chatter-about-stop-and-frisk-here-are-the-facts/">New York City&#8217;s specific stop and frisk policies violated the Constitution</a>. The court stopped short of claiming that the policy was unconstitutional as a whole.
By posting the meme, the Libertarian Party casually endorsed a moral equivalency between a policy intent on deterring crime to save lives and the Nazis&#8217; policy of harassment and eventual genocide of the Jewish people. The meme ignores the fact that the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was an instance where Polish Jews <a href="https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007745">resisted deportation to Treblinka</a>, one of the major Nazi death camps. On April 19, 1943, 750 Jewish resistance fighters started a month-long assault on German soldiers until the rebellion was crushed and the ghetto was demolished.
The Libertarian Party was asked for clarification if it really believes that stop-and-frisk is the same as the Nazis&#8217; attempts to prevent a minority group from resisting against imminent genocide. There has been no response so far.
UPDATE:
The Libertarian Party issued the following reply via Facebook:
<blockquote>We don&#8217;t control state affiliate Facebook pages, but there is a parallel in that stop-and-frisk is a violation of due process and uses profiling.
Memes are often oversimplified images designed to convey a thought, so I can see why this one would be off-putting. The factors leading up to the Holocaust are very complex.</blockquote>
Follow Elliott on <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">Twitter</a>

Libertarian Party: Stop-and-Frisk Policies Similar to Nazi Policies Against Jews

Guns

Holocaust

Libertarian Party

GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump came out in favor of stop-and-frisk at an event in an Ohio church on Wednesday.
According to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/politics/donald-trump-don-king-black-voters.html?_r=1&amp;mtrref=undefined">The New York Times</a>, Trump was asked how he would lower crime in the black community.
&#8220;One of the things I&#8217;d do, is I would do stop-and-frisk,&#8221; Trump responded. &#8220;I think you have to. We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well and you have to be proactive.&#8221;
Naturally the Times goes on to quote a variety of leftists condemning Trump&#8217;s support of stop-and-frisk as a trigger &#8220;alienating&#8221; the black community.
Here are five things you need to know about stop-and-frisk.
1. What is stop-and-frisk? According to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stop_and_frisk">Cornell University Law School</a>, stop-and-frisk involves the police stopping people when there is &#8220;a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed&#8221; and then patting them down to see if they have a weapon on them.
2. Stop-and-frisk is one of the reason&#8217;s for New York City&#8217;s sharp decline in crime. According to <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324063304578525850909628878">Heather Mac Donald</a>, murders declined almost 80 percent and major felonies by almost 75 percent from the early 1990&#8217;s to 2013 thanks to &#8220;proactive policing,&#8221; which includes the practice of stop-and-frisk.
In 2011, &#8220;stops yielded nearly 800 guns and over 5,000 other weapons, mostly knives,&#8221; according to <a href="http://nypost.com/2012/05/22/stop-frisk-facts/">Mac Donald</a>. Critics of the practice argue that this isn&#8217;t enough to justify its use, and they also claim there aren&#8217;t enough arrests from the practice to justify it. However, Mac Donald points out that &#8220;the possibility of getting stopped has clearly deterred many gangbangers from packing heat &#8212; which is precisely the point&#8221; as well as deterred other crimes from being committed.
3. Stop-and-frisk is not racist. This is the common refrain from stop-and-frisk critics, and Mac Donald proves how ludicrous it is using 2011 data:
<blockquote>
Blacks are 53 percent of stop subjects, though they are 23 percent of the city&#8217;s population. Whites are 9 percent of stop subjects, though they are 35 percent of the city&#8217;s population. Therefore, conclude Stringer and others, the NYPD targets individuals for stops based on their race rather than on crime patterns and suspicious behavior.
Here is what the anti-cop critics never divulge: Blacks are 66 percent of all violent-crime suspects, according to the victims of and witnesses to those crimes. Blacks commit around 70 percent of all robberies and about 80 percent of all shootings in the city. Add Hispanic shooters, and you account for 98 percent of all shootings in the city.
Whites, by contrast, were only 5 percent of all violent crime suspects in 2011. According to victim and witness reports, they commit barely over 1 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies.
Such disparities mean that the police can&#8217;t deploy their resources where people most need protection from violence &#8212; in minority neighborhoods &#8212; without producing racially disproportionate stops.
</blockquote>
The numbers are similar from 2012 as well:
<blockquote>
The claim ignores the reality that the preponderance of crime perpetrators, and victims, in New York are also minorities. Blacks, for example, constituted 78% of shooting suspects and 74% of all shooting victims in 2012, even though they are less than 23% of the city&#8217;s population.
Whites, by contrast, committed just over 2% of shootings and were under 3% of shooting victims in 2012, though they are 35% of the populace. Young black men in New York are 36 times more likely to be murdered than young white men&#8212;and their assailants are virtually always other black (or Hispanic) males.
Given such a crime imbalance, if the NYPD focuses its resources where people most need protection, the effort will inevitably produce racially disparate enforcement data. Blacks, at 55% of all police-stop subjects in 2012, are actually understopped compared with their 66% representation among violent criminals.
</blockquote>
In other words, the disproportionate amount of blacks being stopped is consistent&#8211;possibly even underrepresented&#8211;with the disproportionate amount of blacks as violent crime suspects.
When stop-and-frisk critics decry the amount of blacks being stopped, they never provide an answer as to what the proper stop rate should be. Mac Donald pinned down a leftist professor on this in August:
<iframe loading="lazy" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P28D-1oYZRY" width="560"></iframe>
4. A U.S. district judge declared stop-and-frisk to be unconstitutional in 2013. The judge, Shira Scheindlin, ruled in Floyd v. City of New York and Ligon v. New York that stop-and-frisk discriminated against minorities, and was therefore unconstitutional.
But as <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01EEQ9BUA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&amp;btkr=1">Mac Donald</a> explains in her book The War On Cops: How the New Attack On Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, Schendlin based her ruling off the research of Professor Jeffrey Fagan, which was flawed for the following reasons:
<ul>
<li>Fagan did not include the race of criminal suspects in his analysis.</li>
<li>His own research found that only six percent of police stops were unlawful.</li>
<li>Fagan did not distinguish between gang homicides and domestic homicides, which is important because domestic homicides are not usually the cause of street stops. Most homicides committed by whites fall in the former category, so by not distinguishing between the two, Fagan&#8217;s data model creates the impression of an anti-black bias.</li>
<li>Fagan also didn&#8217;t understand the purpose of Impact Zones, where the city would put in high numbers of rookie cops in high-crime neighborhoods, which typically were minority-dominated communities.</li>
</ul>
Therefore, Fagan&#8217;s data models purportedly showing discrimination against minorities as a result of stop-and-frisk can&#8217;t be taken seriously, and yet Judge Scheindlin used it to strike down stop-and-frisk.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg appealed the ruling at the time, but his successor, Bill de Blasio, dropped the appeal.
5. Since stop-and-frisk is no longer used in New York City, crime has subsequently increased. According to <a href="https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ferguson-effect-real-and-hurts-minorities-9124.html">Mac Donald</a>, in &#8220;the first half of 2015, as pedestrian stops in the city plummeted, homicides rose 20 percent; gun crime was experiencing its first two-year consecutive increase in nearly two decades.&#8221; The NYPD had to put down the increase in gun crime by devoting mass resources to &#8220;crime hot spots.&#8221;

5 Things You Need To Know About ‘Stop-And-Frisk’

Menu

Stop-and-Frisk

WILLIAMS: Stop, Question And Frisk

Michael Bloomberg Once Said That He Didn’t Think Young Minority Males Should Have Guns, Wants Them To Be Subject To Stop-And-Frisk

Libertarian Party: Stop-and-Frisk Policies Similar to Nazi Policies Against Jews

5 Things You Need To Know About ‘Stop-And-Frisk’