Malcom X Grassroots Movement Speech [Tupac Shakur]
White NYPD Cops Rejoice after Beating up Black teens after botched Stop and Frisk !
Be mindful to detect the level of desperation in this young mans voice. Empathizes with this young man, as he courageously exposes the terrorism being waged on his community by those who, come under the guise of ‘protect and serve’ but instead enact restrict and restrain polices, through the enforcement of ‘stop and frisk’ a tactic used in Iraq. This creates an open air prison, similar to what we see happening in Palestine. These communities need our help, wherever we find them on the globe, but right here in America, cities under siege, by privateers . Is this a pilot program for the nation, is this where we are headed, a definite cliff hanger if you ask me.
Why Is the N.Y.P.D. After Me?
By NICHOLAS K. PEART
Published: December 17, 2011
I was stunned. And I was scared. Then I was on the ground — with a gun pointed at me. I couldn’t see what was happening but I could feel a policeman’s hand reach into my pocket and remove my wallet. Apparently he looked through and found the ID I kept there. “Happy Birthday,” he said sarcastically. The officers questioned my cousin and friend, asked what they were doing in town, and then said goodnight and left us on the sidewalk.
Less than two years later, in the spring of 2008, N.Y.P.D. officers stopped and frisked me, again. And for no apparent reason. This time I was leaving my grandmother’s home in Flatbush, Brooklyn; a squad car passed me as I walked down East 49th Street to the bus stop. The car backed up. Three officers jumped out. Not again. The officers ordered me to stand, hands against a garage door, fished my wallet out of my pocket and looked at my ID. Then they let me go.
I was stopped again in September of 2010. This time I was just walking home from the gym. It was the same routine: I was stopped, frisked, searched, ID’d and let go.
These experiences changed the way I felt about the police. After the third incident I worried when police cars drove by; I was afraid I would be stopped and searched or that something worse would happen. I dress better if I go downtown. I don’t hang out with friends outside my neighborhood in Harlem as much as I used to. Essentially, I incorporated into my daily life the sense that I might find myself up against a wall or on the ground with an officer’s gun at my head. For a black man in his 20s like me, it’s just a fact of life in New York.
Here are a few other facts: last year, the N.Y.P.D. recorded more than 600,000 stops; 84 percent of those stopped were blacks or Latinos. Police are far more likely to use force when stopping blacks or Latinos than whites. In half the stops police cite the vague “furtive movements” as the reason for the stop. Maybe black and brown people just look more furtive, whatever that means. These stops are part of a larger, more widespread problem — a racially discriminatory system of stop-and-frisk in the N.Y.P.D. The police use the excuse that they’re fighting crime to continue the practice, but no one has ever actually proved that it reduces crime or makes the city safer. Those of us who live in the neighborhoods where stop-and-frisks are a basic fact of daily life don’t feel safer as a result.
We need change. When I was young I thought cops were cool. They had a respectable and honorable job to keep people safe and fight crime. Now, I think their tactics are unfair and they abuse their authority. The police should consider the consequences of a generation of young people who want nothing to do with them — distrust, alienation and more crime.
See related: New York Times: Why Is the N.Y.P.D. After Me?
When President Obama interrupted a regularly scheduled press briefing to acknowledge the collective pain and anger over the acquittal of George Zimmerman, his heartfelt testament to his own experience of racial profiling wrote a page in the history books. Yet, as many would quickly point out, his commitment to addressing racial profiling rang hollow in the shadow of comments he had made just days before, praising New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly as an “outstanding” and “very well qualified” potential candidate to lead the Department of Homeland Security after Janet Napolitano steps down.
In the last year, Kelly has come under escalating public criticism: the NYPD faces five federal lawsuits challenging its stop-and-frisk and Muslim surveillance programs and two City Council bills banning racial profiling and establishing independent oversight over the department. Noticeably “flattered” by the president’s burnishing his increasingly troubled public profile, Kelly went media stumping, heightening speculation that the police chief may be a contender. Whether Kelly is picked as the next secretary or not, President Obama countenanced Kelly’s profiling tactics, and even more sobering, revealed his own cards.
A new study from the nonpartisan Vera Institute of Justice offers a clue. For the study, “Coming of Age with Stop and Frisk,” researchers went into six low-income, heavily policed neighborhoods and surveyed almost 500 young New Yorkers who had been stopped by police at least once. (Stop-and-frisk targets the young; the report notes that “at least half of all recorded stops annually involve those between the ages of 13 and 25.”) As you might expect, most of the respondents’ experiences with stop-and-frisk were negative ones. Almost half of those surveyed said that officers had threatened them or used physical force during the stops. Over 80 percent of respondents claimed that they had been stopped for no good reason; 85 percent said that the frisks turned up nothing illegal.
While it’s obviously hard to verify these self-reported statistics, that last one, at least, does match up with outside numbers: In 2012 almost 90 percent of stop-and-frisk incidents citywide yielded no drugs, guns, open containers, or anything else illegal. This sort of regular, fruitless harassment can’t help but breed hostility toward the police, which in turn seems almost certain to affect the NYPD’s ability to tap community resources in order to solve crimes. The report notes that “only 15 percent [of respondents] believe the police are honest, and 12 percent believe that residents of their neighborhood trust the police. Just four out of 10 respondents said they would be comfortable seeking help from police if in trouble.” Fewer than 25 percent of respondents would bother reporting a known criminal to the police. Only 41 percent of respondents would even bother contacting the police if they were the victims of a violent crime.
It’s hard to assess these numbers without a sense of how they’ve changed over time. There’s never been a ton of love or respect for the police in New York’s low-income, high-crime neighborhoods, and the Vera study doesn’t do much to put these numbers in historical context. And yet, at the very least, it’s clear that stop-and-frisk has done little to improve community relations. And that’s a problem. Criminal investigations succeed or fail in large part based on community buy-in; on officers’ ability to elicit useful information from those who might know how and why a given incident happened. But it’s hard to cooperate with someone you don’t trust—and the Vera Institute report clearly indicates that, in the neighborhoods they studied, “trust in law enforcement is alarmingly low.” By continuing to defend stop-and-frisk, Bloomberg and Kelly risk making it impossible to rebuild that trust over the long term.
NYPD Officer Risks His Job to Speak Out Against “Stop-and-Frisk” Targeting of People of Color 1 of 2
Mike Bloomberg’s fact-free defence of stop-and-frisk
The current leaders of New York City clearly need to be “forcibly stopped” by the courts from continuing their unconstitutional behaviors. Unfortunately, the NYPD, Mike Bloomberg and Ray Kelly persist in their false narrative that without such policies, crime will drastically increase and guns will flow onto the streets. It’s hard to understand why a mayor who prides himself on pragmatic, evidence-based policy would prefer continued denial to reality.
Our research, which was cited in the Floyd case, clearly indicates that the NYPD has placed marked pressure on officers to write stop-and-frisk reports. Our survey of 1,962 retired NYPD officers indicates that of those who retired before 1995, only 9.1% felt high pressure to write stop-and-frisk reports. Since 2002 (the Kelly/Bloomberg years), over 35% of officers feel high pressure to write stop-and-frisk reports. Additionally, the same survey indicates that officers in the Kelly/Bloomberg era felt less pressure to obey constitutional constraints – 47% directly before, compared to 36% during, Kelly/Bloomberg. (The NYPD was required by law to record all forcible stops from 1 January 2001 onward, and the training was quite extensive on this – we know because one of us helped conduct that training. So, we know that recording practices have essentially not changed since that time.)
More recently the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association (the officer’s union) has taken a stand against various laws passed by the City Council requiring oversight of the police department, as well as making it easier to sue officers. With the union now fighting the City Council, it is not likely that officers will be conducting as many forcible stops. Yet, the number of murders continues to decline – once again, revealing the complete fantasy of the position that New York City will be filled with criminals if the stop-and-frisk policy is restrained.
See related: Guardian: Mike Bloomberg’s fact-free defence of stop-and-frisk
NYPD Officer Risks His Job to Speak Out Against “Stop-and-Frisk” Targeting of People of Color 2 of 2
NYC Mayor Bloomberg Launches New ‘Shoot-and-Frisk’ Pilot Program for NYPD
“Shoot-and-Frisk builds upon the groundbreaking success of a scientifically-proven approach to metered justice. Really, it’s just codifying the existing best practices of some of our best officers in the field,” explains Marc la Vorgna, Press Secretary for NYC. “We learned Shoot-and-Frisk — and how effective it is — from real-life practices. You see, if you frisk somebody, and he’s got a knife, or a gun — and that’s happened, in more than 0.1% of the stops, you see — well, it’s a little late to open fire after he’s already shot or stabbed you. It’s not wise tactically. It’s not good application of justice. Shoot-and-Frisk says to our cops on the beat: take care of the problem, take the bad guys down, and then go dot the i’s and cross the t’s.”
“It’s important that the police maintain control, in a crisis situation,” says Police Chief Raymond Kelly. “And it’s especially important that police maintain a control over the use of force — a supremacy of force, on the battlefield. We don’t want anybody getting shot, except the ones that we’re shooting. That’s just law & order.”
With NYPD Chief Kelly getting a nod from The President, as a consideration for the top post at DHS.
I have to wonder if NYPD’s stop and frisk program, is a pilot for the nation. Is this how it’s going down ?
According to Kelly, when you realize that war means casualties, then you can embrace what he calls a view of enlightened application of justice. “If you accept that there will be casualties, then it makes sense that it’s better for all of those casualties — criminal, innocent by-standing consumer, even cop — to have been fallen by police bullets. We can trust that our police officers will use the minimum amount of force, but you never know — a criminal might not pose a threat at all, but he might be hiding an automatic weapon or a bomb. We cannot naively trust that hardened criminals will be as non-violent, or as prudently discriminating in their targets, as sworn peace officers.”
“For example, just this weekend, there was a guy playing in traffic in Manhattan. And our guys had to drop him,” Kelly retells. “And, in the course of bringing him to justice, our guys shot two innocent bystanders. Now, the suspect didn’t have a gun, it turns out — but if he did, and we hadn’t stopped him, how many innocent consumers do you think he might have hurt?”
See related: CNN: Police wound 2 bystanders in shooting near Times Square
Mother Jones © A whopping 9 out of 10 times, Stop-and-Frisk suspects are able to effectively hide evidence of any wrong-doing whatsoever from an officer. According to NYPD stats, above, people of color and ethnic minorities are the best at showing no signs of having committed any crime at all. These are the professional criminals that Shoot-and-Frisk aims to catch.