City Journal Winter 2016

Current Issue:

Winter 2016
Table of Contents
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Gerald Walpin
A “Basic Tool” Against Crime « Back to Story

View Comments (4)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.

Showing 4 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
DeBlasio is such a biased twerp, one ALMOST wishes he learns first-hand about the protections he denies to NYers!
de Blasio's behavior in this matter should persuade the fair-minded that la gauche is shot through with people who are gratuitously destructive (or destructive in service to their self-image). He is unfit to hold the position that he does. The question is, is New York's torpid electorate sensible enough to toss him out in four years time?
Actually, this is not "a constitutional and societal conundrum that could challenge the judicial judgement [sic] of Solomon himself". I cringe whenever I read articles that refer to "stop and frisk" as being some sort of new-fangled police tactic. Has anybody who has had anything to do with this case ever heard of, much less read, the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)? It's obvious that the good mayor's lawyers would prefer to ignore what the Court said in the Terry case. What's truly sad, though, is that the only people who seem to be aware of the facts and the Court's holding in Terry is the panel of the Court of Appeals that set aside Judge Scheindlin's order. So much for that bit of judicial acumen, however, given that DeBlasio's crack legal team appears to have convinced the mayor (if he ever needed convincing) to back away from the appeal. Apparently, the mayor's counsel never bothered to take a course on 4th Amendment law while in law school. They certainly haven't learned anything about it since then. Whether "stop and frisk" is a "basic tool against crime" is irrelevant. Whether it's conducted properly, however, is relevant and will ultimately determine its constitutionality wherever it is part of a criminal case.
This is a constitutional and societal conundrum that could challenge the judicial judgement of Solomon himself. It is obvious that this works really well. It is statistically proven to save lives. It is also the most egregious violation of the fourth and fifth amendment this side of the 3rd Reich. It is scandalously in violation of racial profiling laws, because as you, me and the parking meter are aware, it is not going on along the Golden Mile in Great Neck, and truth be known, are %5 of those stopped, frisked, and found with a gun, white? I would BET not. Is this because white kids and yeshiva boys on the way to schul are not being targeted?
NO, its because they ARE NOT CARRYING GUNS. So Mayor Diblasio's son will no longer have to feel himself a second class citizen harassed by the police is vitally important, but at the cost of other minority young men being shot?
The NYPD really needs to mount and display the guns found as a result of these stops like a Felix Gonzales-Torres artwork that showed pictures of everyone murdered in a week in NYC from a few years back. Also, how many of them actually got the "mandatory 3 years" for gun possession? Inquiring minds want to know.