George Rebane
Over the years the charges of discrimination, racism, and racial profiling have flown thick and fast from our liberal cadres who oppose various policies of law enforcement. And more specifically, the allocation of resources in such enforcement practices is always questioned when it weighs more heavily on one group vs another no matter the reason or particulars behind such allocations. In such attacks from the Left, simplistic quotas rule the day.
A current example of this that will have national implications on our country’s crime rates is how the case of Floyd vs New York, addressing the NYPD’s ‘Stop, question, and frisk’ policy, will be resolved.
NYC’s crime rates have plummeted since the city restored some common sense policing policies returning to the officer on the beat historical prerogatives that every one of my generation understood and accommodated. No one claims that a policeman’s ability to exercise SQF was never abused, but in the large and for generations it was put to effective use across the land. NYC’s recent success has demonstrated that SQF’s politically correct removal from the law enforcement toolkit contributed greatly to increased murder and other crime rates over the last decades.
Today certified racist demagogues like the Rev Al Sharpton are leading the fight to have SQF repealed. His success will cost lives in the black and Hispanic communities, and help restore crime rates to their former levels across the land. But to that sumbich burnishing his public image trumps lowering crime and saving lives every time. And the innumerate sheeple he agitates and herds don’t have a clue.
The Center for Constitutional Rights and lawyers from the elite law firm of Covington & Burling, however, charge in Floyd that such proactive tactics are discriminatory, since blacks and Hispanics make up the large majority of individuals stopped and questioned by NYPD cops. 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'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—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.
True to the know-nothing form that liberals have adopted in such cases, Rev Sharpton argues that a non-racist SQF policy calls for a quota system based on population proportions. This means that at least three whites should be SQF’d for every two blacks. On the other hand, reason and the Reverend Bayes would argue that you apply his celebrated theorem to compute the probabilities (of being a potential criminal given race) and allocate your resources appropriately in order to save the most lives and maximally reduce crime rates.
Self-serving demagogues are not persuaded by such arguments, but then I may be wrong. If we give him the benefit of doubt and believe that he really does care about the blacks and minorities he attempts lead, then we must conclude that he and his ilk are dumber than 2x4s with painted faces.
A better use of Rev Sharpton's time would be to figure out why 60-70 percent of black families are single parent homes, with the father of child missing, except to the day the welfare check arrives, and do something to change the situation. But, that would be asking people to take responsibility for their actions, not one of the left's strong suits.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 13 June 2013 at 06:55 AM
Let me see if I have this correct: George, as a 'conservatarian' you are supporting the right of law enforcement to randomly stop and frisk people on the street without probable cause? Yet you have a problem with PRISM and the IRS holding certain organization up to a higher level of scrutiny based on their mission? I am having a hard time figuring out where the 4th amendment starts and stops in a 'conservatarian' society.
Posted by: stevenfrisch | 13 June 2013 at 07:32 AM
StevenF 732am - I'm not sure I (or you) understand your use of "random". But I strongly support using reason, in this case Bayes, to allocate scarce resources for the purpose of reducing crime and saving lives.
My only "problem" with PRISM is that I don't understand its use, not that we are under surveillance. (I am a former holder of top security clearances and am very familiar with the kinds of surveillance I have been under all my life.) And yes, I have a big problem with the IRS selectively holding conservative organizations to higher levels of scrutiny (aka harassment) than liberal counterparts, especially leading up to the re-election of a demonstrated loser like Obama.
Posted by: George Rebane | 13 June 2013 at 08:09 AM
I understand what random means and how it is applied with stop and frisk George, so don't play this, "sorry Steve you are just too stupid to understand my point game". We have a standard in this country--that standard is probable cause. You are saying that because more crimes are committed by black people we should suspend probable cause and go with a statistical rational for searches. I am asking you at WHAT POINT do 4th amendment rights kick in?
Note: I said "the IRS holding certain organizations to a higher level of scrutiny based on their mission" not "conservative organizations to a higher level of scrutiny", because low and behold, it turns out that just as many 'left wing' organizations have been waiting for their IRS letters as 'right wing" ones. Some have even been de-certified based on their mission, like EMERGE.
And I would think twice about 'demonstrated loser' like OBAMA, he kicked you guys butt by 5 million votes, and Mr. NcCain before him. I would call that a demonstrated winner.
Posted by: Steve Frisch | 13 June 2013 at 09:56 AM
SteveF 956am - I'm afraid the way you raised the 'probable cause standard' does indicate that you don't understand the use of 'random' with the policy in question, and probably other public policies. You see, the probable cause standard is already subsumed under the application of Bayes.
And your asking "at WHAT POINT do 4th amendment rights kick in?" speaks to your knowledge. That amendment now 'kicks in' at arbitrary politically determined points (think of them as probability thresholds) that have no consistency other than what cohort is screaming loudest at the time of application. It was ever thus, and you intend to keep it so.
Well, it really turns out that your news sources are jaundiced, at least re IRS targeting, else it would not be a national scandal that even the Dems are climbing aboard. In any event, please inform your members of Congress of your equal opportunity harassment discovery.
BTW, all rogues and tyrants in declining democracies have been voted in with overwhelming majorities. They have all been big winners.
Posted by: George Rebane | 13 June 2013 at 10:10 AM
George,
Stop and Frisk is one of the worst profiling policies and you support it. Not surprising. http://ccrjustice.org/racial-disparity-nypd-stops-and-frisks
Letting you know what people are thinking. You seem to have a loyal active 4 or 5 supporters on RR but what people are saying outside this blog is interesting. I think you are shooting yourself in the foot if you continue on the same path.
I talked with a couple of local people who consider themselves conservatives yesterday. They brought up RR. They said it was interesting reading but they would never comment and I told them they should. They also said that they disagree with me on taxation but agree on many other issues. Now here is the kicker, they also told me at the beginning they respected your commentaries but as you expand on these commentaries with ongoing dialogue they have realized that you are a narcissist whom they disagree with immensely. They thanked me for my opinions, especially on civil rights. I asked them "what they thought was the biggest problem in our nation at the moment?". There answer "media". I started to mention liberal media and they stopped me and said it is not a liberal media it is about sensationalism nothing else these days. I agreed.
Posted by: Ben Emery | 13 June 2013 at 10:22 AM
BenE 1022am - You seem to be getting all of your news like SteveF, totally from the lamestream. In the topic commentary you completely miss the point that I'm reporting on a national issue which goes way beyond the "4 or 5 supporters" on RR that seem to be your only visible evidence of any topic considered here. Click the posted link, widen your horizons, confirm that all the 'bad stuff' you see is not happening only on RR.
How come you guys always run out of ideas and turn on the messenger? Are you capable of doing anything beyond emoting about NYPD's SQF, and criticizing me for writing a commentary about it. Talk about the policy, the utility is mis/serves, what are the numbers that you believe are relevant about SQF or profiling in general, ... ??? I'm interested and listening; so are we all if you had anything to say.
Posted by: George Rebane | 13 June 2013 at 10:50 AM
Hmm I wonder where I got the idea that you might disagree with the "liberals" on this one. Very sloppy without the links to what you are referring to or did I miss the Al Sharpton link somewhere?
First, using a mathematical theorem doesn't take into account there are civil and natural rights. Mathematically we can do lots of things if we are A-moral, which increasingly you are showing to be when it comes to the liberty of others.
I can see where Thomas Bayes theorem is attractive to you, it was formulated before the progressive founding documents and ideals of the United States of America were formed.
Lets see
"Over the years the charges of discrimination, racism, and racial profiling have flown thick and fast from our liberal cadres who oppose various policies of law enforcement. "
"NYC’s crime rates have plummeted since the city restored some common sense policing policies returning to the officer on the beat historical prerogatives that every one of my generation understood and accommodated. No one claims that a policeman’s ability to exercise SQF was never abused, but in the large and for generations it was put to effective use across the land. NYC’s recent success has demonstrated that SQF’s politically correct removal from the law enforcement toolkit contributed greatly to increased murder and other crime rates over the last decades.
Today certified racist demagogues like the Rev Al Sharpton are leading the fight to have SQF repealed."
"True to the know-nothing form that liberals have adopted in such cases, Rev Sharpton argues that a non-racist SQF policy calls for a quota system based on population proportions."
If I had to take a guess what Reverend Sharpton described was if we were to go straight off of % the ratio of white to black would be 3:2.
Posted by: Ben Emery | 13 June 2013 at 11:27 AM
Ah, innuendo. Well played, Ben. "They" say lots of things, don't "they"? No, walking while black isn't probably cause, but walking while dressing and talking like a street thug probably should allow some scruitiny. Of course, what hasn't been tried in NYC is actually letting the law abiding of all races to own and possess guns in their homes, let alone letting those willing to submit to a security check and training to have a permit to carry.
The 'stop and frisk' approach also catches and turns into felons the otherwise law abiding who want to exercise their rights under the 2nd who are forbidden that by Bloomberg and friends.
The Bayesian approach can lead to the shredding of the 4th amendment when the 'spidey sense' of law enforcement is overactive, and has been applied to upper and middle class whites (among others) guilty of "Flying from California" and other imagined malfeasances. Larry Gaines, a Beech J35 owner (a single engined v-tail dating from 1958 that can be purchased for less cash than many of the cars in the Rood center parking lot) from Stockton active in the American Bonanza Society, a group that promotes training, proper maintenance and technical support to the aging fleet, had a harrowing experience while being detained for hours because he took off from Stockton, refueled at Calaveras-Rasmussen (KCPU, a good place to refuel thanks to lower prices than most) and then flew on to a friend's location in OK. The Homeland Security fun was subsequent:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/annals-of-the-security-state-more-airplane-stories/276018/
Apparently, pot is grown in California and flying east is part of the "profile".
Posted by: Gregory | 13 June 2013 at 11:27 AM
BenE 1127am - I think we're done trying to exchange ideas until you at least read my post.
Your deduction - "If I had to take a guess what Reverend Sharpton described was if we were to go straight off of % the ratio of white to black would be 3:2."
What I had already written - "...Rev Sharpton argues that a non-racist SQF policy calls for a quota system based on population proportions. This means that at least three whites should be SQF’d for every two blacks."
Let's give it a rest for a while.
Posted by: George Rebane | 13 June 2013 at 11:40 AM
George,
More guns doesn't do anything except increase guns sales. I am talking on the perpetuating crime and preventing crime. Guns don't stop crime, people do.
Do you think the banksters on Wall St have more influence on crime than the "street thug"? Lets compare shall we.
Street Thug- mugs a person takes their wallet and money
Loss of money, time & energy (cancelling cards filing reports), and most of all the sense of safety.
Wall St- gambles away life saving/ pension funds, speculates on commodities jacking up prices globally, creates derivatives out of Government backed loans
The ripple effect of this is endless, which creates more street thugs
What would happen if the stop and frisk policies were aimed at Wall St? I think we would see some heads roll in New York City and the policy would be stopped immediately.
Posted by: Ben Emery | 13 June 2013 at 11:45 AM
Here's a current story about street thugs in NYC, Ben. It isn't your idealized version:
New York (CNN) -- "As weekend temperatures soared over 90 degrees Fahrenheit, New York City saw a sudden increase in shootings, with 26 people felled by bullets in 72 hours -- seven fatally.
"When we have hot temperatures, we see that the crime rate seems to go up," New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday.
But Bloomberg emphasized that for the year, shootings are down in the city -- 127 since January 1, which is 40 less than the same period in 2012.
"One shooting is one too many, but last week we had the fewest shootings in a decade, including this weekend's shootings," Bloomberg noted."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/us/new-york-heat-shootings
At least Bloomberg's Wall Street buddies don't shoot, stab or beat people to death. There is a difference.
Posted by: Gregory | 13 June 2013 at 11:53 AM
"More guns doesn't do anything except increase guns sales. I am talking on the perpetuating crime and preventing crime. Guns don't stop crime, people do."
No Ben, when there's someone with a gun, a knife or a baseball bat intent on harming others, it generally takes a good person with a gun to stop them. Most of the time the good guy doesn't even have to pull the trigger to end the threat.
Posted by: Gregory | 13 June 2013 at 01:50 PM
A fresh approach to the Bayesian approach... an article in FLYING magazine today details the program that was apparently the one that detained my fellow Beech pilot:
"He also told us that during the training he was taught that the pilots were to be treated as though they had no right to refuse the search. "What they taught law enforcement officers and agents was that all aircraft can be detained since they all fall under the . . . authority of the FAA." He continued that, "this in effect gives them complete search authority of any aircraft."
The agents teaching the course admitted during instruction that the stops had a very low rate of success in finding drug traffickers. Our source said one agent admitted that the stops involved "a lot of empty work but when you get a bite, it's a big bite."
http://www.flyingmag.com/news/feds-say-pilots-have-no-rights?
A legal FAA ramp check can only require the production of the "AROW" documents, Airworthiness Certificate, Aircraft Registration, Operating Limitations (aircraft handbook) and Weight and Balance (the aircraft flight manual supplement). They can also be expected to demand one's pilot certification, their medical certification and a legal photo ID.
The FAA can't just search your plane or hold onto those documents, and can't detain you longer than is needed to glance at the documents to verify they are in order.
Posted by: Gregory | 13 June 2013 at 04:59 PM
Dr. Rebane, I find the liberal mind a most fascinating topic which dovetails nicely with current events.
Reverend Al owes more than 1.6 million in taxes, yet he has not had to deal with the nastier side of the IRS. Liberals simply find the Tea Party, Catholics, Christians, Vets, Evangelicals, and any contributors to the right side of the aisle as unsympathetic folks, be they great or small. Yet, The Most Reverend Al is a very, very sympathetic person who deserves a nod and a wink and of course we all must overlook any of his many short comings.
The liberals oppose spying on terrorists because they oppose spying on anybody.
The liberals oppose deportation of illegal aliens because they are still singing "This land is my land, this land is your land."
The liberals oppose profiling because the people profiled are sympathetic victims of white colonization, be they black, brown, towel heads, or bush rats.
That's how they operate. Liberals claim they are all concerned with protecting the civil liberties of each one of us, yet they have a hard time vigorously defending the rights of the filthy rich. Guess the filthy rich and anti-abortion folk are evil, thus their civil liberties don't really matter. Not really. Besides, the 1%ers can afford their own lawyers, which indeed makes them very very unsympathetic to the liberal mind.
That's how it works. Broken thinker syndrome. Results don't matter. Only sympathetic folks matter.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 13 June 2013 at 10:36 PM
George and your handful of followers,
Here is the latest on stop and frisk policy that you so lovingly support. Just imagine it was you that was being stopped and humiliated not because you were guilty of anything but you fit a profile in a very unjust system where climbing the SES ladder has major obstacles at every rung.
Any person worth their salt in being a proponent of liberty would be appalled at stop and frisk.
The Changing War on Crime, in Three Graphs
"One deeply troubling report, released in February, indicates that – in recent years – black male offenders have received sentences nearly 20 percent longer than those imposed on white males convicted of similar crimes. This isn’t just unacceptable – it is shameful."
http:// www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/08/changing-war-crime-three-graphs/68239/
Posted by: Ben Emery | 13 August 2013 at 08:59 AM
BenE 859am - In NYC alone 'my handful of followers' number in the millions. I'll have more to say on the SQF ruling that just came down. Your anecdotal repartee is expected but still not relevant to NYC law enforcement and protecting its most vulnerable population segments.
Posted by: George Rebane | 13 August 2013 at 09:51 AM
George,
You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting the suppression of liberty in the USA.
Posted by: Ben Emery | 13 August 2013 at 09:59 AM