Gee, no mention of the Fourth Amendment. No mention of the assault on Madisonian protections against tyranny that unwarranted search implies. Would this be easier to comprehend if NYPD wore red coats, or if 400 surrendered prisoners had been massacred by Hessian and Scottish mercenaries on Long Island more recently?
MacDonald's description of Scheindlin's decision misstates the relationship of the oversight manager -- going forward -- with cops on the beat. Indeed, someone will be responsible for what happens with stop-and-frisk actions. Under Kelly there has been no responsibility. None whatsoever. No reporting and no follow up except for the simplest event reports.
Consider this from the piece:
"Kelly declared that the NYPD 'targets” its stop activity at young black and Latino males 'because it wants to instill the belief in members of those two populations that they could be stopped and frisked every time they leave their home so that they are less likely to carry weapons.”
That is pretty much what Kelly and MacDonald are claiming that stop-and-frisk accomplished over the last decade to reduce the murder rate. Scaring them blacks 'n spics worked !! What else ????? Well, the big changes go to crack cocaine declining, sourcing inconveniences for the heroin trade in Afghanistan after 2005, and undercover work that busted several of the local drug gangs. Stop-and-frisk has helped but not much. This is a 2% to 5% contributor, no where near the importance of busting up ALKQN in the Bronx.
While MacDonald makes a credible case against Scheindlin's bias towards the NYPD and Kelly, she can't escape the fact that 19 times out of 20 the police were wrong in their suspicions. That is a lousy success rate.
As though I need ANOTHER reason not to return to NYC.
"Just how clueless is U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin about the New York Police Department?"
Another incompetent brainless social engr lib 'judge'. It's stupid that people pay any attention to people like her, an indictment of society. Massive stupidity.
I would suggest that the NYPD go outside the corps of lawyers available at City Hall, and find a very good Appellate Level attorney to overturn this travesty - Alan Dershowitz comes to mind.
Here in Cincinatti you can rent a gun for the night. The "cleaner" the gun, the more the rent. A gun with a criminal history, a "dirty" gun, is far cheaper.
This is almost always for black on black crime.
Political correctness and liberalism will be the cause of death of this country
Dear Madam Macdonald;
What do you have against NYT personally...it is apparent to me that every chance you get you attack the ‘gray lady'; why?
Why is it that you feel so justified in scrutinizing the judicial system when you don’t get your way? You speak as though you care about or have empathy for the victims of these crimes but you are a privileged white woman who, in my opinion knows/cares far less about the safety of the public than Judge Scheindlin.
What empirical knowledge do you have to be able to usurp the opinion of a 'distinguished' district court judge? You should have become a judge!
Wonderful article and spot on.
But it really makes you wonder if the people opposed to stop and frisk are simply comfortable with hgih crime. After all, since these people make the (false) case that crmie is the result of poverty, and the cure for poverty is money, and anti-poverty money goes through the hands of those who make a living off poverty while doing nothing about it, the fact is, for these people, the more crime the better. And, high crime drives out people who might vote for the opposition.
In short, for the people opposed to stop and frisk, high crime is not something to be avoided, it is a community condition to be embraced since it means more money.
In any event, just what do you do when one group or groups commit crime out of all proportion to their numbers? Do you ignore it, as the plaintiffs would have the New York City police do, or do you try to do something about it, even in the face of rabble rousers like the plaintiffs? After all, it would be easy for the NYPD to write off the communities where high crime happens - heck they would take much less flak if they did that. It is a testament to the dedication of the police that they are not willing to do so.
But, then again it is also up to the community to support the police and their efforts. That too, is missing from this debate - where are the voices in the community supporting policing efforts? Or has the Democratic media done its job, ensuring that the community has forgotten just how horrendous conditions were before Rudy and Bloomberg came along.
And of course, none of this goes to the cause of high crime, which is the result of Democratic policies that have resulted in the destruction of the black family. But that is an issue for another day.
True to form:
The problem is the NYPD was arguing that stop/frisks should be in proportion to the RACE of criminal suspects in the city, rather then taking EACH CASE as unique and EACH case requiring Reasonable Suspicion.
Heather, you never define what is legitametly called racial profiling.
In a swirling array of politically correct mis think, where the very policies the progressives advance will weigh heaviest on the select victim groups they claim to advocate for, I find little to no surprise.
We have had a 80 odds years of judicial social engineering to witness the likes of Scheindlin & their destructive ideologies corrode the underlining bulwark of the American society. Incapable of ever reaching the ends by which they design their means.
In other words, Scheindlin is a typical Leftwing harridan. I'll say it again: I hope she's the first to get mugged. Not that it would change her mind -- her ilk are ineducable.
The bitter irony is that the people she clucks and coos over and pretends to care about -- poor minorities -- are the ones who will suffer the most if she gets her way.
Dear Heather, two years ago, in a City Journal article about Peter Stein's Salzburg Macbeth, you wrote: "Many directors today shrink from Macbeth’s portents and spirits as an embarrassing throwback to a more naive sensibility. Not Stein. (...) Such fidelity to the story drove the German and Austrian critics into a state of apoplexy."
Well, well. I'm reading a Telegraph critic about Stein's new Don Carlo (here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/opera/10242211/Don-Carlo-Salzburg-Festival-review.html):
"And the production? What production? There may be nothing distractingly outré, fussed-up or bizarre about Peter Stein’s staging, and his designers’ concept of pale-coloured walls offset by black period costumes will cause no offence beyond the long tension-killing scene changes that the sets seem to require."
But it is hard to believe that anyone with Stein’s reputation should put his name to a spectacle so blank, lazy and unimaginative.
Some things never change, eh?
What about Met trying to take Stefan Herheim's Meistersinger to Met? (http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/2013/08/just-in-met-signs-up-salzburgs-meistersinger.html). What about CALIXTO BIEITO at the Met (good Lord, no! http://kurier.at/kultur/buehne/peter-gelb-eine-kritische-zeit-fuer-die-oper/21.752.883)?
Reason has nothing to do with it. There are names and careers to be made and if a city must founder, so be it.
Even the people writing the opinion and giving what they claim are analyses backing that opinion up don't believe what they say and write. Put them in a dark alley and have someone engage in some `furtive movement' and just see how cool they aren't.
Or maybe not. Maybe NYC policing has become so good that people really are safe. If so, the judge is in for a nasty comeuppance when her ruling bears its inevitable fruit.