Black, White, and Blue: How Christians Rate the Police

"Race influences views of US law enforcement more than religious tradition—except locally."

3476 reads

There are 13 Comments

David R. Brumbelow's picture

Ordinary black people cannot afford to go along with the liberal agenda that calls for undermining police authority. That agenda makes for more black crime victims...

In 1990, New York City adopted the practice in which its police officers might stop and question a pedestrian. If there was suspicion, they would frisk the person for weapons and other contraband. This practice, well within the law, is known as a Terry stop. After two decades of this proactive police program, New York City's homicides fell from over 2,200 per year to about 300. Blacks were the major beneficiaries of proactive policing. According to Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald -- author of "The War on Cops" -- seeing as black males are the majority of New York City's homicide victims, more than 10,000 blacks are alive today who would not be had it not been for proactive policing…  -Walter Williams

https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2017/02/15/pawns-of-libe...

David R. Brumbelow

Bert Perry's picture

It is worth noting that while strong policing can be effective, the election of Bill DiBlasio as Mayor was in great part a response by minorities to excesses, real and perceived, of the NYPD.  I believe LA and elsewhere have seen this, too.  People need to eat donuts with officers that live in their communities and that kind of thing--have positive interactions with them.  I would dare suggest that the common practice of having officers do a LOT of traffic enforcement works against this, too--it means that far more people are seeing the police as a mechanized meter maid instead of as someone who can protect them.  The end result is that people forget--think Chris Rock and his video (rather vulgar, word to the wise) "How not to get your a** kicked by the police"--that various laws are indeed there for their own good.  And as a result, interactions that ought to be innocuous become angry and sometimes even lethal.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Jim's picture

With Their Elevated Homicide Rates, Four Cities Stand Out

The 4 cities:

  • Chicago: "Five neighborhoods with just 9% of Chicago’s population accounted for one-third of the city’s homicides in 2016"
  • Milwaukee: "10% of neighborhoods generate half the city’s violent crime" ... "Mr. Flynn, the Milwaukee chief, said a series of police-involved shootings have made officers wary of becoming the next viral video, and eroded relations in the most violent neighborhoods.“Police are back-footed, but not because they are being truculent,” he said. When officers “feel like they are being treated as the enemy, it affects their motivation.”
  • Memphis
  • Baltimore: "In Baltimore, following the death two years ago of Freddie Gray from injuries he sustained while in police custody, arrests plummeted 45%, while homicides rose 78% and shootings more than doubled."

 

In the comments section: "Look no farther than BLM for an explanation..."

Joel Shaffer's picture

David R. Brumbelow wrote:

Ordinary black people cannot afford to go along with the liberal agenda that calls for undermining police authority. That agenda makes for more black crime victims...

In 1990, New York City adopted the practice in which its police officers might stop and question a pedestrian. If there was suspicion, they would frisk the person for weapons and other contraband. This practice, well within the law, is known as a Terry stop. After two decades of this proactive police program, New York City's homicides fell from over 2,200 per year to about 300. Blacks were the major beneficiaries of proactive policing. According to Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald -- author of "The War on Cops" -- seeing as black males are the majority of New York City's homicide victims, more than 10,000 blacks are alive today who would not be had it not been for proactive policing…  -Walter Williams

https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2017/02/15/pawns-of-libe...

David R. Brumbelow

First of all, giving proactive policing such as stop and frisk as the magic bullet to reduce crime doesn't account for certain changes going on in NY.  In the  late 1990's into the 2000's,  hard drugs such as crack cocaine suddenly stopped being the drug of choice for the majority of people in the 'hood.   It wasn't because of the police crackdown, but rather because the younger generations got sick of  the continued devastation of the drug on their families and chose not to smoke crack.  There is a definite correlation between selling harder drugs such as crack cocaine and violence.  When the demand of crack went down, so did the violence and yet here we have out of touch conservative commentators and scholars believing that it was pro-active policing that made the difference (shaking my head right now).  Furthermore, cities such as Philadelphia, Seattle, Boston, Baltimore, and New Orleans that copied NY's blueprint of pro-active policing didn't experience the drastic drop in violence that NY did.    As for the "10.000 lives that were saved" (shaking my head at that notion as well). what about the several millions that were stopped (approximately 88% were let go without any arrest or booking) and some of those who were stopped lost trust in the police force and chose not to report crimes in their community?  Relationships of trust between the police and the community that they protect and serve is vital to keeping crime in check.  When the community does not trust the police because they keep on stopping them, crime doesn't get reported.  This is what happens when unintended consequences of government/law-enforcement over-reach.  

Although MacDonald's book sheds light on some of the ridiculous liberal nonsense that attempts to absolve minorities of any personal responsibility, she also ignores certain trends such as the fact that violence against police has gone down and she makes crazy predictions such as the Ferguson effect, which was supposed to lead to the rise of attacks on police everywhere.  It hasn't happened like she predicted and she is just as much as a perpetrator to hyperbolic fear on the right as the BLM movement is on the left.  My respect for Walter Williams has dipped a bit.  He probably should stick to what he knows, namely economic theory, rather than dealing with sociological issues such as Criminal Justice Reform that are beyond his simplistic analysis.    

 

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

While the Ferguson Effect may not be nearly as drastic as some have portrayed it, a Pew Research Study has shown that it is partially real (i.e. a reduction in police wanting to stop and question or make arrests), and does affect the way police carry out their duties, even if it hasn't resulted in attacks on police "everywhere" or huge increase in crime some have predicted:

Pew Research Center wrote:
In a new Pew Research Center national survey [published January 11, 2017] conducted by the National Police Research Platform, majorities of police officers say that recent high-profile fatal encounters between black citizens and police officers have made their jobs riskier, aggravated tensions between police and blacks, and left many officers reluctant to fully carry out some of their duties.

The wide-ranging survey, one of the largest ever conducted with a nationally representative sample of police, draws on the attitudes and experiences of nearly 8,000 policemen and women from departments with at least 100 officers. It comes at a crisis point in America’s relationship with the men and women who enforce its laws, precipitated by a series of deaths of black Americans during encounters with the police that have energized a vigorous national debate over police conduct and methods.

Within America’s police and sheriff’s departments, the survey finds that the ramifications of these deadly encounters have been less visible than the public protests, but no less profound. Three-quarters say the incidents have increased tensions between police and blacks in their communities. About as many (72%) say officers in their department are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons. Overall, more than eight-in-ten (86%) say police work is harder today as a result of these high-profile incidents.

The study goes on to say that the number of attacks on police has increased in recent years.  It also talks about differences in perception of white officers vs. black, as well as about what the officers think about guns, etc.  It appears very even handed.  Even if we would agree that "stop and frisk" may not be a silver bullet, that doesn't mean that backing away from enforcement of smaller crimes is always the best policy either.

Even a DOJ (hardly a conservative source) study in June of 2016 noted that the "Ferguson effect" is a possible explanation for the observed rise in the murder rate, but that more evidence will be necessary.  While this is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Ferguson effect, it doesn't clearly debunk it either.  I think common sense would tell us that there would be some effect from coming down hard on police enforcement, even if it doesn't necessarily result in Armageddon on the streets.

Dave Barnhart

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

When the demand of crack went down, so did the violence and yet here we have out of touch conservative commentators and scholars believing that it was pro-active policing that made the difference (shaking my head right now). 

Joel, I'm open to this possibility, but how do you know? The impact of "stop and frisk" has been thoroughly studied, on the other hand. And though the data admits of more than one interpretation, its effectiveness is not just guesswork.

Also there's quite a bit of media misinformation about "stop and frisk." In policing these are known are known as "Terry stops," after a famous court case (I believe it's Terry v. Ohio), in which a high court (circuit or Supreme, can't remember) determined that "reasonable suspicion" is an adequate standard for a stop and question. The frisking part is usually not permitted (some exceptions) unless there is also "probable cause," but under the 4th amendment, stopping and questioning on reasonable suspicion is considered "search and seizure."

All that to say just say that "stop and frisk" as a policing strategy (along with many others) has never been the random thing many in the media suggest. There are very strict standards for these things and even plausible allegations of violations are pretty expensive for municipal police departments. (Actual litigation far more so)

The community policing model Bert describes--and that got much rhetorical focus in the Obama era--is really the common sense approach most small town (and many of the better precinct/beat cops) police have practiced for more than a century. It can coexist just fine with "stop and frisk."

I would add that as the demand for crack declined, demand for meth, heroine and a slew of synthetics increased pretty much in sync. in most places. So a decline in crime would have to be explained by more than reduced crack demand.

Joel Shaffer's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

When the demand of crack went down, so did the violence and yet here we have out of touch conservative commentators and scholars believing that it was pro-active policing that made the difference (shaking my head right now). 

Joel, I'm open to this possibility, but how do you know? The impact of "stop and frisk" has been thoroughly studied, on the other hand. And though the data admits of more than one interpretation, its effectiveness is not just guesswork.

Also there's quite a bit of media misinformation about "stop and frisk." In policing these are known are known as "Terry stops," after a famous court case (I believe it's Terry v. Ohio), in which a high court (circuit or Supreme, can't remember) determined that "reasonable suspicion" is an adequate standard for a stop and question. The frisking part is usually not permitted (some exceptions) unless there is also "probable cause," but under the 4th amendment, stopping and questioning on reasonable suspicion is considered "search and seizure."

All that to say just say that "stop and frisk" as a policing strategy (along with many others) has never been the random thing many in the media suggest. There are very strict standards for these things and even plausible allegations of violations are pretty expensive for municipal police departments. (Actual litigation far more so)

The community policing model Bert describes--and that got much rhetorical focus in the Obama era--is really the common sense approach most small town (and many of the better precinct/beat cops) police have practiced for more than a century. It can coexist just fine with "stop and frisk."

I would add that as the demand for crack declined, demand for meth, heroine and a slew of synthetics increased pretty much in sync. in most places. So a decline in crime would have to be explained by more than reduced crack demand.

I'm glad that you are open to the possibility because there are many other studies that link the drop of violent crime to the decrease of the demand of crack cocaine.  Unfortunately, at a site like Sharperiron, there is not alot of exposure to these viewpoints about crime and violence  that I believe hold much more merit than the stop and frisk type of policing.  This New York time article cites several studies which support this theory.  http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/27/us/drop-in-homicide-rate-linked-to-cra...   That is what I've seen over the past 25 years living in the 'hood as an inner-city missionary reaching out to our community, including people that are drug dealers, gang-members, drug-users, and etc..... It is not based on guesswork.  It is reality and there is much evidence that supports what we in our neighborhood already know.  

Aaron, I have seen "stop and frisk" happen multiple times in my neighborhood and in suburban neighborhoods.  Let me give you one personal example.  A co-worker of mine and myself were coming home from speaking at a missions conference and we were stopped for no reason.  My co-worker (who is black) was yanked out of the car and immediately searched for drugs  by a sheriff deputy.   There was no reasonable suspicion that led to this.  The deputy stereotyped Davien to be a drug-dealer and me as his middle-aged drug-fiend (Why else would a young black man be riding in the car with a middle-age bald white man?)  All it did was humiliate my friend.  Many of my neighbors and friends attest to situations like this happening to them time and time again.  You would probably be surprised to know that the national media and Obama rhetoric is more true than what you will receive on fox news or from other conservative pundits about Criminal Justice Reform.  By the way, I disagree with every other policy in the democratic/liberal/progressive agenda and Obama.  The difference is I have been given a 25 year front row seat to what has gone on and what is going on with crime and violence in my neighborhood and other inner-city neighborhoods across America.  Just so you know, the Grand Rapids Police Department is now emphasizing community policing while stop and frisk type of policing has become a rarity.  In the past couple years they have seen a dramatic drop in violent crime.  People in the inner-city are trusting the police more and the relationships are not nearly as strained as they were several years ago.  

Also, when crack declined in the inner-cities among black people (which this whole conversation is revolving around with Walt Williams faulty article) it was not replaced by meth or heroine, or other any other synthetic drug.  If anything it was replaced by Marijuana.   The rising use of Meth and the comeback of Heroine is a very recent phenomenon in inner-city neighborhoods like mine (last 5 years) So it actually is a very valid explanation.  

 

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

There was no reasonable suspicion for what he did.  All
it did was humiliate my friend in front of me.  Many of my neighbors and
friends attest to this happening to them time and time again. 

I don't doubt that this happens, but this is not what the "stop and frisk" strategy is. S and F is meant to go along with numerous other tactics... and what you described is both illegal and contrary to NYPD policy. With you as a witness, the two of you should have turned that cop in.

As for the rise of meth, etc., the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 passed in 2005... I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure I've read that NSDUH as well as DEA data show a steady increase in heroin and other opiates as cocaine declined as well.

Alas, probably temporary though. The systematic burning of cocaine fields in Columbia has tapered off for a while and recently ceased altogether. A result is likely to be a resurgence in the popularity of cocaine variants as it becomes cheaper again.

I think the kernel of truth in much of the BLM narrative is that illegal and non-standard offenses by officers do actually occur. Unfortunately, whole policing models are flushed because of these... which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. "Guys keep breaking the rules, so we need new rules"  seems to be the reasoning. Doesn't seem like the rule/policy/tactic is the problem if it's not being followed.

Joeb's picture

NY literally is almost completely high end now.  Except for the public housing projects the whole city is yuppified. Has anyone driven through Bronx on 95 lately. Gone are all those block after block of abandoned buildings.  So the economics of NY has changed everything. A  one bedroom condo almost any where in NY is 200 gs plus.  

Phila and New Orleans still have big poor minority neighborhoods. Even the drug traffic has changed.  Now the gang  bangers are still there but their clientel is 80% white suburban people.  The lastest warning is they are now putting a drug in the heroin that is used to put down elephants.  This drug is 10000 times more powerful then the equivalent amount of feytenal.  

This is what the drug picture is now and the guys killing cops in the future may be more whites.  

A small fraction of the cops are racist.  I try to see both sides of the picture.  As a whole I'll side with the cops every time. I also agree the BLM will put their own people at risk because the cops will be less willing to put themselves out on a limb to stop crime.  I have worked the hood and I know how dangerous it can be.  The gang bangers have no respect for the badge which in the early 80s they still did.  I almost got jumped in the early 80s in North Philly one time. I showed the badge and the gun they backed right off.  They said they did not want to mess with the "man".   

Now if I did that today they would all pull out their guns and shoot me on the spot.  Of course if quick draw Bert was with me the bad guys would go down.  

Joel Shaffer's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

There was no reasonable suspicion for what he did.  All
it did was humiliate my friend in front of me.  Many of my neighbors and
friends attest to this happening to them time and time again. 

I don't doubt that this happens, but this is not what the "stop and frisk" strategy is. S and F is meant to go along with numerous other tactics... and what you described is both illegal and contrary to NYPD policy. With you as a witness, the two of you should have turned that cop in.

As for the rise of meth, etc., the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 passed in 2005... I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure I've read that NSDUH as well as DEA data show a steady increase in heroin and other opiates as cocaine declined as well.

Alas, probably temporary though. The systematic burning of cocaine fields in Columbia has tapered off for a while and recently ceased altogether. A result is likely to be a resurgence in the popularity of cocaine variants as it becomes cheaper again.

I think the kernel of truth in much of the BLM narrative is that illegal and non-standard offenses by officers do actually occur. Unfortunately, whole policing models are flushed because of these... which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. "Guys keep breaking the rules, so we need new rules"  seems to be the reasoning. Doesn't seem like the rule/policy/tactic is the problem if it's not being followed.

I see a difference between the Obama narrative and the BLM narrative.  Much of the BLM narrative is dressed in hyperbole and it made no sense when they were protesting places such as the Dallas police force when their police chief had made drastic systematic changes (such as firing 77 police officers (1% of the force) several years prior who had multiple and provable excessive police force claims filed against them.  Now I am not saying that the Obama narrative was perfect, but I thought he did a pretty good job upholding the rule of law and respect for police while at the same time recognizing that there are certain police departments across the country in our inner-cities that need to be held accountable for not dealing with their bad apples (1%) that spoil the whole bunch.   

 

Joel Shaffer's picture

Informative article from Newsweek on the "War on Cops" and how NYPD's method of stop and frisk was doing more harm than good.   

In 2013, a federal district court ruled that the NYPD's tactics were unconstitutional. The court noted that cops were evaluated by their "productivity"—that is, finding contraband and making arrests. Officers were not disciplined for stops that turned up nothing, and innocent persons had no practical legal recourse for brief detentions and pat-downs of their clothing. Thus the police had job pressures to stop a lot of people, suspicious or not, to see what might turn up.

That helps to explain why, of the 4.4 million police stops between January 2004 and June 2012, there was no further action taken, such as an arrest or summons, in a whopping 88 percent of them. Mac Donald does not address these points.

http://www.newsweek.com/war-cops-flawed-logic-fantasy-485546

The article also mentions other incidents of stop and frisk that were not reported by NYPD, which would put the % number of drug finding even lower.    Also, when a police officer is evaluated by how many drug contrabands he finds, suddenly stop and frisk becomes much more frequent than it should.  Its human nature.  That is what happened with the NYPD.   

David R. Brumbelow's picture

A couple of years ago I got pulled over by a police officer for no apparent reason.  He got my driver’s license and went back to his police car, for what seemed like 30 minutes or more.  He came back, returned my license, offered no explanation, and left. 

Many black folks would swear up and down that was racism; but I’m white and the officer was white.  To this day I don’t know why he pulled me over, though we can all speculate. And so yes, I've been pulled over by police more than once for no apparent reason.  I'll also admit in my younger days I got my share of speeding tickets.  

I don’t deny there is true racism, but much that is called racism is not.  We all get slighted most every day; usually that is not racism. 

Frankly, another variable in supposed racism is the fact that blacks commit more crime than whites.  Therefore, often a disproportionate number of blacks will be investigated. 

“The word ‘racism’ is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything - and demanding evidence makes you a ‘racist.’”  -Thomas Sowell

A few more of my thoughts on this matter. 

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2015/10/black-lives-matter-all-lives...

David R. Brumbelow 

Bert Perry's picture

....is that there were a bunch of other things even besides those that Joel, Joe, and others note with the NYPD.  If you look at the NYPD wiki, you see quickly that the NYPD has almost 50,000 employees, among which are over 22000 patrol officers, plus detectives, etc..  This is one police employee for every ~ 180 people.  In constrast, the LAPD has about 12000 staff for four million people, or one staff for every 320 or so residents.  This makes a huge difference in what crimes are resolved, especially when (as Joe notes) Gotham really doesn't have a huge "dead zone", economically speaking, as do Chicago, Detroit, and Los Angeles.  

Other things they've done beyond stop & frisk, If I remember correctly, is to pioneer using a computer-driven map of crimes to re-allocate officers, started to make arrests for "minor" lifestyle crimes like tagging and squeegeeing, and in the process, they started finding that when a guy's prints were on file for graffiti or being the squeegee guy, that guy realized that he ought not be leaving those prints at burglary scenes and the like.

Which is a long way of saying that it's complicated, and again, we need to remember that a lot of New Yorkers said "we've gone too far" when they elected the current mayor.  It's also worth noting that not too many cities are going to spend close to twice what they currently to per person, especially cash-strapped places like Chicago, Detroit, and LA.

So yes, the police are in a way the best friend of minority residents, but again, if you want a sustainable crime-fighting effort, you've got to get the affection of the people, too.   In a manner of speaking, it is important for cops to drink coffee and eat donuts at local shops.  People need to see them without the bubblegum machine churning.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.