Shootings in Parts of New York City, Triple, Double After End of Stop and Frisk

serrano130527_2_560

Liberals really love minorities. They fought long and hard against “Stop and Frisk” because even though they are obsessed with gun control, stopping and frisking likely gang members discriminated against minorities. Most shootings in urban areas are gang related. Stop and Frisk was an effective way of keeping gang members from carrying.

It was also racially disproportionate because unfortunately there’s a shortage of white Crips in East New York… and a shortage of white residents in the areas where most shootings happen.

Stop and Frisk was shut down. The killings started up. Now Judge Shira Scheindlin and the liberal media have the blood of black people on their hands.

Shootings in some of the city’s most dangerous neighborhoods are up, tripling in one Brooklyn precinct and doubling in another as well as one in the Bronx, NYPD figures show.

The number of shooting victims so far this year in the 69th Precinct in Canarsie, Brooklyn, increased threefold to 18 compared to six fatalities in the same period last year.

In the 75th Precinct in East New York, the number of shooting victims had doubled as of Sunday, from 17 to 34. And in the 47th Precinct in the Bronx, the number of people shot has already more than doubled, from 12 to 25.

“While any increase is always a concern, this one is a spike and a spike that we’ll be able to respond to,” said NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton on Tuesday.

Bill Bratton won’t respond to the shootings because his boss has tied his hands. Bill de Blasio opposes every effective crimefighting measure.

The only thing Bratton is still allowed to do is put more cops on the street… and there aren’t enough cops to shut down gang violence by just patrolling. Ask Chicago.

Bratton, who said a decrease in stop-and-frisk tactics wasn’t the cause of the jump, also pointed out that about a third of shooting victims weren’t cooperative with cops.

They’re not cooperative… because they’re gang members. Stopping gang members from shooting each other was what Stop-and-Frisk did.

Would Bratton like to share with us a reason for the massive spike in gang violence? Nah, he’ll just let his boss roll out some more income inequality programs to fix the underlying social issues which will keep gang members from shooting each other.

It worked in the 70s. It”ll work now.

“I used to walk to the store late at night, but now I can’t,” said Chelsia Febles, a 22-year-old Bronx Community College psychology student, as she pushed her 4-month-old in a stroller. “All of the shootings have me scared.”

And yet Chelsea probably voted for Bill de Blasio.

Andre Green, 20, said he believed gangs were responsible for most of the violence.

“The police should get on it, but it’s hard to tell who they are,” he said. “It looks good around here with homes and working people. But it isn’t safe.”

The police can’t get on it because stop and frisk was banned.

Katherine Lee, a 78-year-old retired bookkeeper, blamed a lack of police as she stopped on the corner of Baychester Ave. and Tillotson Ave. in the Bronx’s 47th Precinct.

“There’s not enough police,” she said. “They only come after people get shot. Where are they? Look around you. You don’t see a single cop.”

There’s not enough police because after every shooting, procedure floods the area with cops. Multiple shootings mean watchtowers and massive police patrols of the kind that would freak out any of the bloggers complaining about MRAPs.

But meanwhile the gangs beat the heat and deal and feud somewhere else. Then the cops swarm there.

It’s like nothing has been learned from the seventies. Nothing at all.

  • Gee

    Am sorry that crime has increased. Maybe if the New York City police left the doughnut shops and did their jobs they would not feel that they had to violate the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.
    Most other police seem to able to do their job without illegal searches, why are the New York City police incapable of doing the same?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Which other police? Chicago police? The LAPD?

      How exactly are the police supposed to stop gang members from shooting each other?

      • Gee

        Yes but they are not stopping people at random and searching them. They are keeping a lower crime rate.
        According to the NYPD that should result in a huge increase in crime, yet the statistics do not track that.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          It’s not random. They have a pretty good idea of likely gang members, even if they can’t say so.

          • Gee

            Belief in gang membership is probable cause. So that would not fall within ‘Stop and Frisk’

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Except you can’t say that or put it in writing

          • Gee

            Why?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Because it would have outlawed it even faster.

            What are you going to say? Young black and latino males? Tattoos? Attitude? Clothing?

            The ACLU and every liberal media outlet wouldn’t be able to squeeze through the door fast enough.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Test the ethics of the ACLU.

            Will the ACLU live in their clients “hoods”?

          • Chavi Beck

            What do you want to do, pass a law that ACLU members have to spend x number of months living in Bed Stuy?

          • DB1954

            It has its possibilities …

          • DB1954

            Youth, cops look for youth. See Travis Hirschi.

          • DB1954

            It’s all probability policing, aka risk management. The perp profile is youth, often minority. So do police employing stop and frisk see and treat people as a number?

            Well, yeah, but it’s better than a fatality number.

        • Bryan Schmick

          They WERE not stopping people at random. They WERE lowering the crime rate. That’s the point of the article. Profiling was determined to be illegal and suspect people were not allowed to be searched resulting in the increase of violent crime. A two to three times increase is huge.

          • DB1954

            The judge is theorizing. This is what judges do best. She wants a promotion to the next level of theorizing–the appeals court, where she can cause–statistically speaking–tens of thousands of shootings, deaths, maimings, and accidental deaths simply because her theories aren’t congruent with reality.

        • Jeff Ludwig

          Mr. Gee….Stop and frisk actually was determined to be Constitutional. But it’s not required that a locality use stop and frisk. The Constitutionality of stop and frisk is not the question.

      • laura r

        maybe its ok for gang members to shoot each other. thats what they are about. the problem is people accidently getting shot.

        • DB1954

          By gang-bangers? So let the police stop and frisk. The problem isn’t accidental shootings. It’s a bone-headed federal judge who THEORIZES that the “rights” of gang-banging punks are being grievously abused in urban areas by police who already KNOW who has the guns. Jeez.

          • laura r

            let them kill each other. less of them to worry about.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Pick up gang members, interrogate them, find out who the leaders are, pick up the gang leaders and their lieutenants.

        Cut the head off the gangs. The gangs will wither without their leaders.

      • DB1954

        I keep saying this. Am I wrong? Stop and frisk is simply the most effective form of gun control. I don’t say that it’s effective. I say it’s the MOST effective form of gun control.

        For one thing, it’s targeted gun control and not just with regard to the race of those targeted. It’s their age as well. Is there a criminologist left in this country who does not know that crime is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of youth? When the police look for weapons, why would they stop and frisk a ninety year old man or a 50 year old woman?

        In urban areas, stop and frisk makes sense, and since it’s really only youth whose “rights” are diminished, is stop and frisk really all that heinous or serious a “civil rights violation”?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          It’s people control really. The gun control outlaws guns. S and F is a way of finding guns held by criminals.

          So I can understand quite well why conservatives oppose it, but this is the reality of the social environment.

          Now if guns were legal, it might be a different story.

          But since guns are illegal, S and F is basically a way of targeting gun ownership by gang members rather than civilians

    • http://tinatrent.com/ Tina Trent

      Left the donut shops? How contemptuous. I’d like to see you spend one day patrolling gang territory.

      Stop and Frisk addressed NYC’s high density public housing gang nightmare and saved lives. Now it doesn’t, thanks to the so-called civil libertarians, who care not one whit about the civil liberties of anyone other than murderous thugs.

      Cities with out-of-control violence are clamoring for any solution — and every solution they find is systematically attacked by the ACLU and their blood-soaked peers. In NYC is was stop and frisk. The top ten cities by homicide rate aren’t among the big three, and stats are affected by how the metropolitan area is determined, but Chicago and L.A. are objectively worse off than NYC in recent years — thanks to stop-and-frisk keeping NYC’s rates lower.

      If you want more clarification on stuff like . . . facts, man up and use a real name with your next obtuse query.

      • Gee

        Am an old soldier and patrolled far more dangerous places for years like Hebron.
        Yes I am very contemptuous of police to have to violate laws to enforce laws. Many fine police do not need to do that

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Hebron is dangerous, but it’s a different kind of danger.

          The Constitution was built for an American society. It doesn’t work in parts of the country that have gone feral.

          You might as well try to apply it to Mexico or Somalia.

          • Gee

            And New York City has ‘gone feral’? Your largest city? Am not being a smart a$$, legitimate questions

          • Bryan Schmick

            Not yet, but it’s getting there. Many other large cities are also on the way. Cities usually controlled by Liberals. Detroit, Chicago, suburbs of LA come to mind.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It’s not that bad these days because of policing. Without it, it can go as bad as Detroit or Chicago.

            Or the ‘villages’ in Israel where the police simply won’t go.

          • Chavi Beck

            Rudy Giuliani cleaned up New York and that’s when people stopped running away. Bloomberg maintained what Giuliani had accomplished but DeBlasio seems bent on reversing everything back to 1991.

          • DB1954

            DeBlasio considers Rudy Guliani, Bloomie, and the cops the criminals.

        • Bryan Schmick

          The Israelis frequently make use of profiling to ensure safety. That is the primary reason you rarely see terrorism in Israeli air traffic. They study people and examine those that meet a profile. It was profiling that was made illegal in NYC. Israeli policies would be illegal in NYC. Are you contemptuous about areas removing common sense laws that save lives?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Lives should never be put beneath Political Correctness.

            That’s why the anti-terrorism wall in Israel works – to the consternation of Islamists and Eurabians.

    • DB1954

      Stop and frisk is nothing more than targeted and relatively efficient gun control.

  • Ban Liberals

    I’m shocked. SHOCKED, I SAY!

  • BMS

    Thanks all you bleeding heart liberals

  • tagalog

    Obviously the rights of members of gangs who can claim minority status trump gun control. I don’t know why they don’t just write a clause to that effect into New York’s gun control laws.

  • DogmaelJones1

    I know the solution, and I’m sure Marxist Mayor Bill de Blasio would be keen on the idea of starting a “Gangs Anonymous” support group program, where a supervised frank exchange of views and confessions about why members hate the Crips and Bloods and Hellboys. This would help to air out differences and alleviate the pressure on cops to police the violence. You’d hear confessions such as, “I went two whole days without killing a Crips guy, but I fell off the wagon yesterday with my .45 Colt. When I nailed that sucker.” And the Crips members would rise and hug the confessor to death with a shiv in his back. At least it would be crime taken off the streets and processing the paperwork would be minimal, and no arrests made.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      They already have that in Chicago and other places.

      • DogmaelJones1

        Reality is beginning to outstrip fiction. And here I thought I was being satirical!

        • Daniel Greenfield

          I did a piece on a fist fight between gangs at a reconciliation office in Chicago. They called it progress since they didn’t use guns.

          • DogmaelJones1

            Now, that’s worthy of satire. Starring the Bowery Boys vs. the Park Slope Pugilists.

    • http://tinatrent.com/ Tina Trent

      In Boston, Chicago, L.A. and several smaller cities, Ceasefire type programs pay gang members to do all sorts of useless to dangerous nonsense like this. In most cases, the is widespread theft and acts of violence arising from the paid and officially empowered gang members, then they stop the programs, then they start them up under different names.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Mao Tse Blasio just needs to drop the other shoe and create gulags in NYC.

  • glpage

    Does anyone really think that the leftists who opposed stop-and-frisk really give a rat’s patoot about blacks?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      True

    • DB1954

      The judge in this case, I would submit, cares only about her bloated ego as a federal judge, the power she exercises, and her theory that she’s making the police obey the constitution.

      All a lot of hooey.

      • Round-The-Way-Nigga

        The main reason stop and frisk got so much opposition was because the police did not only search for weapons as many would have you believe. They would constantly find small amounts of drugs on people and subsequently arrest them. In fact this was the number one arrest from a SAF encounter by far. Yes it did do alot of good by taking alot of guns off the streets but it was touted as a gun controll measure and ended up just catching alot of marijuana smokers. If the police didnt expand on a program to reduce guns by doing full body search rather than a simple pat down for weapons we might still have the program today.

  • Pete

    How is stop and frisk different than DUI roadblocks?

    Roads for roadblocks are not chosen completely at random.

    Roadblocks ensnare many innocents.

    I do not like Stop & Frisk nor DUI roadblocks, but I have never campaigned against DUI roadblocks.

    I hope we move to something better, less obtrusive or to not need these at all but until then.

    Laser device can detect alcohol in cars: External device detects presence of alcohol vapors inside of a moving car

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140602155959.htm

    Some people are going to protest these lasers as well even though people use “public” roads on the grounds of illegal search and seizure.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The difference is that drunk driving is not a crisis due to a broken culture. We can expect people to act responsibly and punish them if they don’t.

      Here unless you intervene you end up with an unlivable war zone and worse things down the road. Look at Mexico.

      • Pete

        I would say small parts of out culture are broken such as college students feeling like they have to drink to excess to have fun.

        But your point is well taken. Order of magnitude matters as does apologia or lack of it.

  • cxt

    If only someone had taken the time to explain that before they ended the policy.
    Oh…wait…..we did and NOBODY listened.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      liberals always know best

  • Jeff Ludwig

    Before Guiliani took over I was robbed twice in Brooklyn. Once I was on my way home from church and someone put a gun to my head. Another time, I was entering my apartment foyer. Two guys jumped me. One had a green complexion and a Neanderthal forehead. He punched me in the face while holding a 14″ knife to my chest. The other guy grabbed my wallet. When the police came, they refused to cruise the neighborhood looking for the guys. They said they had probably gotten away…. Huh? I knew so many people who had been mugged (robbed). After Guiliani took office, crime went way down. It became safer to walk the streets. Now, murders are coming back. The panhandlers are back on the subways. Knockout games are becoming more common — I now cross the street if I see a gang of black teens, girls or boys, walking towards me, even if they appear “respectable.” Despite decades of building bridges with other races, I’m not stupid. These gangs don’t stop and ask you, “Do you believe in the brotherhood of man?”
    Bloomberg continued Guiliani’s work as far as policing goes. Still, I couldn’t stand Bloomberg with his nanny state concept of government. However, the law enforcement approach was sound.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      yup, now it’s all going down the toilet.

      There will be enough policing gimmicks to prevent an immediate collapse, but the frauds in reporting will become worse and you can’t cover up constant Chicago style shootings, so they’ll rant about gun control.

      The Daily News is already preemptively doing it

  • Bulan Sabriel

    The US does not have a gun violence problem , other than suicides, and
    good riddance to them. What we have is a gang violence problem. The
    leftist who like to compare American gun violence to that of Europe fail
    to note that the gun violence rates of European-Americans is
    comparable. In fact, take out a few majority-minority leftist-run cities
    and America’s gun crime rate is comparable to that of other western
    nations.
    Frisking people who are out of place may seem racist, but it
    is not. Allowing vermin to shoot each other and kill innocent
    minorities is racist. And as long as inner city communities refuse to
    deal with and continue to collude with criminals, we should treat them
    like war zones for the safety of all Americans.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Yes I’ve written in the past that this is a gang violence problem mainly in urban Dem enclaves.

      Gangs are hard to deal with. Especially once they get really big.

      • Jeff Ludwig

        Very true. I taught in a high school that had the Bloods and the Crips. A team of NY State officials came to the school to see how educational standards (haha) were being upheld in the school. As they started their tour on the first floor, about six bloods wearing their red gang colors were walking with their inimitable swagger down the hallway, coming towards them. The officials decided to return to Albany and evaluate the school at another time.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          we don’t deal well with armed parallel social systems

        • DB1954

          Until we abolish all state compulsory education laws, we will never tame the beast of government schools. Kids who don’t want to be in school will find a way not to be there, or the schools turn into prisons and the teachers will be jailers.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Treat gangs like invaders from a foreign country.

        Mercilessly Bomb them, lay waste to their homes until they agree to surrender unconditionally – then execute their leaders.

        • Chavi Beck

          I think what you’re describing actually happened in Philadelphia some time in the 70s or 80s. Entire city blocks bombed to rubble. Frankly I hope someone has a few better ideas. Rudy Giuliani did.

          • DB1954

            Abolish compulsory education laws.

        • Bulan Sabriel

          No. Just follow the NY model from 1993-2009.

      • DB1954

        Often the only effective means of social control is that exercised by the individual over his environment. He votes with his feet.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          which turns the area into a disaster zone, see Detroit. And then the products of that broken environment tag along to make the areas the other fled to even worse

      • Bulan Sabriel

        Mosquitos breed in a swamp. Make the cost of protecting gangs higher than the cost of not doing so.

  • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

    I remain convinced that “stop and frisk” was never more than a band-aid, albeit one that did stop some of the bleeding. The ultimate problem here is failed inner-city culture, and the only real solution is to tear it out, root and branch, from our society. That’s going to require some measures people just aren’t ready for, like the end of the welfare state as we know it, freeing up urban areas from the excessive regulations of all kinds always imposed by Democrats to allow for economic renewal (jobs to replace welfare), the replacement of failed public schools by private schools, and the courage to condemn the psychopathic “music” such as hip-hop produced by these areas.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      of course it wasn’t a solution, every so-called policy to deal with urban problems has been a band aid

      • Chavi Beck

        Innocent black kids living in these neighborhoods had a chance to grow up thanks to bandaids like this. That’s ending now.

        • DB1954

          Stop and frisk, couldn’t be perfect, but it is the most–perhaps only–effective form of gun control.

    • DB1954

      The abolition of all government schools will begin with the abolition of compulsory education laws.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        Perhaps, but the compulsory education laws are far less obnoxious than government-run schools. Anyway, let’s hope we live long enough to see the beginning of the end for government schools.

        • DB1954

          Government run schools depend on compulsory school attendance laws. Why? Because 95+% of parents can’t afford to send their kids to private schools. The result is compulsory GOVERNMENT education for virtually everyone. That’s exactly the reason why government schools will never end until compulsory attendance laws are repealed.

          The beginning of the end of government schools is the repeal of compulsory education laws. They have a monopoly until we demand that the government respect our freedom.

          I want to educate my child my way. For me, it’s a fundamental right. The government is now empowered to deny me that right.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            I think most parents could afford to send their children to private schools if they weren’t being taxed to pay for public schools. I would suggest the school tax be separated out from property taxes, and anyone with a child in private school be exempted from the tax. That would leave everyone else to pay a reduced school tax to send very poor children to private schools.

          • Chavi Beck

            Many immigrants from less egalitarian cultures would be hard pressed enough to send their sons to school and would not necessarily feel the need to kill themselves even more just so their daughters could get an education too. I think compulsory education requirement is a good thing, only the govt should be a LOT less specific about what needs to be taught and how and, worst of all, by who. It’s time to open the free market in education. There are lots of charter schools doing a fine job in even the worst neighborhoods of our cities. Google Jaime Escalante, Marva Collins, Cristo Rey, Harlem Success Academy.

    • TheDefenderOfTheFaith

      When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

      Thomas Jefferson

  • honeybee

    De Blasio and Rahm Emanuel are making room for the thousands flooding the Southern borders

  • DaveGinOly

    “Now Judge Shira Scheindlin and the liberal media have the blood of black people on their hands.”

    No, they do not. Just like the NRA has no blood on its hands for any of the recent school and other mass shootings. The people responsible are those who pulled the triggers and no others. “Stop and frisk” was an unconstitutional intrusion into the rights of the people of NYC, including those of gangsters and other criminals (they have rights not because they’re gangsters and criminals, but because this is the United States, where rights are supposed to be protected by government, and not set aside in the name of safety and security). The apparent efficacy of “stop and frisk” shouldn’t enter into the thought process of any right-thinking American. Are you opposed to more gun control merely because it wouldn’t work? No, you are not (and neither am I). You’re opposed to more gun control (and, if you’re like me, opposed to most current gun control) because it’s unconstitutional and an intrusion into your rights as an American. The efficacy of any government policy should never be a substitute for a proper consideration of its constitutionality.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The Bill of Rights case against gun control is far more straightforward than the case against Stop and Frisk.

      More to the point, limited government applies to a moral people capable of self-government. Like it or not that’s not the situation we’re dealing with here and talking about what should be won’t change that.

      If the average American couldn’t be trusted to own a gun, then gun control would become inevitable. That’s what we’re really fighting against.

      A Constitution doesn’t exist in the abstract. It has to be upheld by a people.

      Without that it’s no more than a theory that has no practical application because it doesn’t work in the real world. Like most of the ideas of the left.

      • DaveGinOly

        You’re correct about rights being appropriate for a moral people and none other. But under our system of government it is not within the government’s authority to keep us, or any portion of us, moral. That is the business of society at large, not government. If, as a society, we fail to keep our people moral, then we will get the government we deserve as we have allowed our society to decay. We cannot, however, treat some people in one way (as if they are full citizens with rights) and other people in another way (as if their rights had been lost by their behavior). This violates both the principles of “due judicial process” and “equal protection under the law.” Once the government believes it can treat some people like this, it will begin to treat all people this way, whether they deserve it or not.

        • http://tinatrent.com/ Tina Trent

          The stop and frisk cases that were used to prompt federal intervention are not as clear cut as you seem to think. Have you read the rulings?

          • DB1954

            Have you read the writing on the walls? It seems to say “tyranny now rules.”

        • DB1954

          This government is determined to keep us all immoral–as immoral as they are. They do this through forced school attendance laws and government (Marxist) indoctrination schools.

    • American Patriot

      Do you believe that the anti-Semitic Crown Heights Riots were an “uprising” like so many on the radical left believe?

  • mackykam

    Welcome back Fort Apache. Relocated to Brooklyn. Which is why diBlasio is moving to Gracie Mansion in Manhattan.

  • usmcwarrior

    This is an age old struggle; “freedom vs security”, pacifism vs intentional defense, rights vs privlege…and no of the Left’s arguments hold up for them once they fall victim to the fruit of their own vision.

    Of course, their answer to that is always the same, it is someone else’s fault.

  • DB1954

    It was inevitable that some liberal judge would declare “stop and frisk” off limits. Liberals are often narcissists, but they’re almost always theoreticians. Eventually, some federal judge, who’s both was going to do this.

    I wonder if we could defend stop and frisk more successfully if we had called it an effective form of gun control?

  • Lanna

    New York will end up just like Chicago….enforce the laws and quit trying to help the criminals by making more anti-gun laws which does not make anyone safer…. and reasons to inhibit the police from doing their jobs, they know what they are doing! The results are that the innocent people get hurt with liberal complacency!

  • john buonocore

    I love LIBERALS, DEAD ONES that is.