[Steve]

Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:49PM
NEW YORK (WABC) -- Police Commissioner William Bratton was under fire Wednesday morning for saying that he cannot hire enough qualified black officers because they are too hard to find.

The New York City Police Department can't find enough black officers to hire because it's hard finding candidates without a criminal record, Bratton told the British newspaper, The Guardian.

"We have a significant population gap among African-American males because so many of them have spent time in jail and, as such, we can't hire them," he said.

Bratton said he deals in facts, but his remark set off a firestorm of criticism from civil rights groups and the New York City Council.

Some minority leaders are calling it a teachable moment. Brooklyn Borough president Eric Adams is a former police captain and said he he has no doubt that stop-and-frisk tactics have hurt the NYPD on hiring.

It seems to me that the media will use everything and anything to stoke up controversy regardless of the facts.

http://7online.com/news/bratton-unde...ficers/776134/

[Kanda444]

im sure he is correct, that it's hard to find black officers because most candidates likely do have criminal records....but, they make an excellent point when they point out how the 'stop and frisk' policy is working over there. consider this data from just the past couple years:

An analysis by the NYCLU revealed that innocent New Yorkers have been subjected to police stops and street interrogations more than 5 million times since 2002, and that black and Latino communities continue to be the overwhelming target of these tactics. Nearly nine out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent, according to the NYPD’s own reports:


In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 532,911 times:
473,644 were totally innocent (89 percent).
284,229 were black (55 percent).
165,140 were Latino (32 percent).
50,366 were white (10 percent).

In 2013, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 191,558 times:

169,252 were totally innocent (88 percent).
104,958 were black (56 percent).
55,191 were Latino (29 percent).
20,877 were white (11 percent).

In 2014, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 46,235 times:

38,051 were totally innocent (82 percent).
24,777 were black (55 percent).
12,662 were Latino (29 percent).
5,536 were white (12 percent).

In the first quarter of 2015, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 7,135 times.

5,857 were totally innocent (82 percent).
3,693 were black (53 percent).
2,123 were Latino (30 percent).
864 were white (12 percent).

source via New York Civil Liberties Union and on how the data was collected:

About the Data
Every time a police officer stops a person in NYC, the officer is supposed to fill out a form to record the details of the stop. Officers fill out the forms by hand, and then the forms are entered manually into a database. There are 2 ways the NYPD reports this stop-and-frisk data: a paper report released quarterly and an electronic database released annually.

The paper reports – which the N.Y.C.L.U. releases every three months – include data on stops, arrests, and summonses. The data are broken down by precinct of the stop and race and gender of the person stopped. The paper reports provide a basic snapshot on stop-and-frisk activity by precinct and are available here.

The electronic database includes nearly all of the data recorded by the police officer after a stop. The data include the age of person stopped, if a person was frisked, if there was a weapon or firearm recovered, if physical force was used, and the exact location of the stop within the precinct. Having the electronic database allows researchers to look in greater detail at what happens during a stop. Below are CSV files containing data from the 2012 electronic database.

so, it seems that the Stop and Frisk argument might be founded in truth....

the controversy isnt that the NYPD isnt hiring enough black officers...it's that their policies are failing to be fair, statically.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

im sure he is correct, that it's hard to find black officers because most candidates likely do have criminal records....but, they make an excellent point when they point out how the 'stop and frisk' policy is working over there. consider this data from just the past couple years:



source via New York Civil Liberties Union and on how the data was collected:



so, it seems that the Stop and Frisk argument might be founded in truth....

the controversy isnt that the NYPD isnt hiring enough black officers...it's that their policies are failing to be fair, statically.

What does that have to do with blacks committing crime?

[TheVrist]

TBH, we've become a little too anal, with our distributions of crime. We have also evolved to segregate ex-cons completely from society, lets face it, a felon is sentenced to life, even if he only spent a year in jail.

The distribution of eligible crimes has become in a way, that a well minded, solid character person, could become a convicted felon with very little, to no effort. It started with the habitual acts, or in some states better known as the 3-strikes acts on minor crimes, being enhanced, and with no statute of limitations.

While I agree, some charges should be on the shoulder's of it bearers for life, there are numerous that should go away, once you have served your time, and proven to society that you're capable of being a pillar.

Many cops have the same mindset as an ex-con anyway, they were just never caught.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by Top Gear ↗

What does that have to do with blacks committing crime?

what does the disproportionate number of blacks being targeted by stop and frisk techniques have to do with there being more blacks charged with crimes?...that's the question?

well, consider the following as well:

the practice leads to more marijuana arrests than anything else (source). as it's been pointed out before, "White Americans are more likely than black Americans to have used most kinds of illegal drugs, including cocaine, marijuana and LSD. Yet blacks are far more likely to go to prison for drug offenses." (source) another study that looked at "the 12-month prevalence rates of drug use were examined for undergraduate college students based on race/ethnicity and gender" found that " Among men and women, the use of these substances tended to be higher for Hispanic and White students than for Asian and African American students." (source) so even in college aged adults, blacks are less likely (according to some studies) to do drugs than whites or latinos....yet when you target them, stoping and searching them on the street for no real reason other than they are black and they are present, then it's obvious that black individiuals will be caught with weed more than white individuals...and that weed charge will stop them from being a cop, even though weed isnt a big deal and is legal elsewhere in the nation.

in other words, when you take a population of people in the US and randomly stop and frisk people, you will find that the majority of your stops will be for minor drug related offences....and when you target minorities, you will get (obviously) seemingly higher crime rates from minorities. so, unfair practices equals racial disparities in regards to non-violent crimes.

....then, when you try to find potential police candidates from that same population, it should be no surprise that the racial group targeted the most end up having a higher conviction rate making more of them ineligible to work for the police force.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

TBH, we've become a little too anal, with our distributions of crime. We have also evolved to segregate ex-cons completely from society, lets face it, a felon is sentenced to life, even if he only spent a year in jail.

The distribution of eligible crimes has become in a way, that a well minded, solid character person, could become a convicted felon with very little, to no effort. It started with the habitual acts, or in some states better known as the 3-strikes acts on minor crimes, being enhanced, and with no statute of limitations.

While I agree, some charges should be on the shoulder's of it bearers for life, there are numerous that should go away, once you have served your time, and proven to society that you're capable of being a pillar.

Many cops have the same mindset as an ex-con anyway, they were just never caught.

great points. when you look at the numbers and you see that the majority of the people stopped are minorities and you also see that most are being arrested for possession of marijuana....what are these people suppose to do with their lives now? most applications i've filled out ask 'have you ever been charged with a crime' but they dont ask what the crime was or if it was a felony or misdemeanor.....or if you can explain the unfair social stigmas surrounding your conviction and why you personally feel that your experience has made you a better, more moral person and has led to life changing introspection.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

what does the disproportionate number of blacks being targeted by stop and frisk techniques have to do with there being more blacks charged with crimes?...that's the question?

well, consider the following as well:

the practice leads to more marijuana arrests than anything else (source). as it's been pointed out before, "White Americans are more likely than black Americans to have used most kinds of illegal drugs, including cocaine, marijuana and LSD. Yet blacks are far more likely to go to prison for drug offenses." (source) another study that looked at "the 12-month prevalence rates of drug use were examined for undergraduate college students based on race/ethnicity and gender" found that " Among men and women, the use of these substances tended to be higher for Hispanic and White students than for Asian and African American students." (source) so even in college aged adults, blacks are less likely (according to some studies) to do drugs than whites or latinos....yet when you target them, stoping and searching them on the street for no real reason other than they are black and they are present, then it's obvious that black individiuals will be caught with weed more than white individuals...and that weed charge will stop them from being a cop, even though weed isnt a big deal and is legal elsewhere in the nation.

in other words, when you take a population of people in the US and randomly stop and frisk people, you will find that the majority of your stops will be for minor drug related offences....and when you target minorities, you will get (obviously) seemingly higher crime rates from minorities. so, unfair practices equals racial disparities in regards to non-violent crimes.

....then, when you try to find potential police candidates from that same population, it should be no surprise that the racial group targeted the most end up having a higher conviction rate making more of them ineligible to work for the police force.

So who is committing the most crimes?

[rob666]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

TBH, we've become a little too anal, with our distributions of crime. We have also evolved to segregate ex-cons completely from society, lets face it, a felon is sentenced to life, even if he only spent a year in jail.

The distribution of eligible crimes has become in a way, that a well minded, solid character person, could become a convicted felon with very little, to no effort. It started with the habitual acts, or in some states better known as the 3-strikes acts on minor crimes, being enhanced, and with no statute of limitations.

While I agree, some charges should be on the shoulder's of it bearers for life, there are numerous that should go away, once you have served your time, and proven to society that you're capable of being a pillar.

Many cops have the same mindset as an ex-con anyway, they were just never caught.

Facts.

Is it true that a person convicted of a felony can't vote or get a student loan? An education is the key to progressing in life. If you deny that to someone after they've done their time, it's a life sentence.


People make mistakes, do stupid things, but people change too. If you give up on someone and remove them from society for something not that bad, how can you expect them to want to contribute to society?

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Facts.

Is it true that a person convicted of a felony can't vote or get a student loan? An education is the key to progressing in life. If you deny that to someone after they've done their time, it's a life sentence.


People make mistakes, do stupid things, but people change too. If you give up on someone and remove them from society for something not that bad, how can you expect them to want to contribute to society?

Yeah, you lose many federal benefits. For most part even if you could get a loan/grant for a higher learning, you wouldn't be able to obtain most of the licenses that require to practice most professions. It is pretty sad ordeal..

[niknik]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

im sure he is correct, that it's hard to find black officers because most candidates likely do have criminal records....but, they make an excellent point when they point out how the 'stop and frisk' policy is working over there. consider this data from just the past couple years:



source via New York Civil Liberties Union and on how the data was collected:



so, it seems that the Stop and Frisk argument might be founded in truth....

the controversy isnt that the NYPD isnt hiring enough black officers...it's that their policies are failing to be fair, statically.

Garbage. Perfect example of how you can break out numbers and percentages and cloud the situation. Because with numbers it's easy to hide a big part of the story.

Like what areas of the city were the most violent? Which areas were the most dangerous? Which areas had the worst crime? I think you know the answer. The areas with high minority populations

Which would explain why the results showed that minorities were more often the target.

It would be incredibly stupid for the cops to leave areas where 60+ murders and rapes a year and shootings every other day. And go to a area where violent crime is relatively low and frisk people to make color quotas.

Bottom line, stop and frisk was started to crack down on specific areas of the city. Where crime was the worst, where it was getting out of control. You can't talk about stop and frisk without talking about the crime it was meant to confront.