Stop and Frisk in Chicago - an idea

POTUS said recently that a "stop and frisk" policy may help Chicago deal with its ongoing violence. Of course, that statement immediately triggered knee-jerk reactions calling it racial profiling, stereotyping, etc. Even though there is no argument that black on black violence is responsible for the greater majority of deaths and is the biggest threat to the lives of minorities in the inner city, it is unconscionable to even suggest that minorities might be part of the problem.

So I had an idea. Why not take the personal preference out of the equation and let the numbers do the talking?

Keep it racially unbiased until the results demand otherwise. Suppose the CPD was to start off with 1,000 stop and frisk checks divided equally among the four most prevalent racial groups in the city: white, black, hispanic, asian. (* see below) If stop and frisk of white people found 50 illegal guns but stop and frisk of black people found 150 illegal guns you now have a statistical reason to target three times as many black people as white people. After all, the goal is not to inconvenience everyone equally, its to find illegal weapons and get them off the streets. It makes sense to focus where the greatest concentrations of these illegal weapons are to be found, target the people most likely to be carrying them. If that turns out to be white people, then there is your answer. Or if it turns out to be black people, there is your answer. Whomever it is, that is where the CPD should be looking the hardest. Once every quarter the 1,000 unit baseline numbers should be taken again to monitor any ratio changes and measure the effectiveness of the program.

You can't call it profiling or stereotyping if the numbers dictate the actions. If your racial group is caught twice as often then you should be checked twice as often. Every three months you have a chance to demonstrate that you are better than that. If you fail to rise to the occasion there is no one to blame but yourselves. At the end of each quarter, or at the very least annually, the results can be published. Transparency is important.

We can't afford to ignore potential solutions to an increasingly severe problem for fear of being politically incorrect. I say screw being PC and start saving some lives instead. If they live long enough, you can apologize for hurting their feelings later...



* If desired, those checks can be adjusted per capita racially and still be considered fair and unbiased. Asians represent 5% of the population as opposed to 45% for white people. 250 stop and frisks each is a much higher percentage of Asians than whites. (its an option to consider)

note: I did not cite references to racial percentages, rate of incident of various crimes, etc. The numbers change all the time. The goal here is to suggest a plan of implementation that will always be fair - regardless of the percentages or rate of incident because the response of the program is tied directly to the actual percentages themselves.

Like my grandfather used to say, "If raccoons are getting in your garbage chasing off alley cats won't solve your problem."

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional!

That is all that needs to be said.

P

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional!

That is all that needs to be said.

P

Tell that to the TSA next time you try to fly somewhere...

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Thank-you for starting this thread! It was on my list of things-to-do.

I heard that Rudy Giuliani implemented Stop-n-Frisk in New York City. It worked.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

this is why

www.nyclu.org...

great idea though


i know i would sure love to get stopped for no #ing reason

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional!

That is all that needs to be said.

P

Tell that to the TSA next time you try to fly somewhere...

is walking through the airport about to get on a plane the same thing as walking down the sidewalk?

im not sure here

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional!

That is all that needs to be said.

P

Tell that to the TSA next time you try to fly somewhere...

is walking through the airport about to get on a plane the same thing as walking down the sidewalk?

im not sure here

It may or may not be. But the thing is, there are a whole lot of people getting killed here. If saving lives is the goal does it matter if its on an airplane or an inner city neighborhood? Like I said, it makes sense to target your efforts where they will do the most good.

No one wants to get stopped for no reason. But every year I have to deal with sobriety checkpoints. I have to deal with police officers standing in between lanes at stop lights slapping post-it notes on cars where people don't have their seatbelts fastened. People are stopped for no reason all the time. Why not do it for something that might actually save some innocent lives?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

i like how even in your hypothetical scenario, blacks still had the most weapons and ok to stop and frisk.

so your bias is already showing, even hypothetically.
despite stop and frisk data showing the 90% of blacks stopped vs 10% whites 82% blacks innocent, 75% whites had weapon/contraband.

Stop and frisk policy was ended in New York because it violated people's 4th Amendment rights among other reasons.

This is a policy that Republicans hang onto that I will never understand.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Vroomfondel

i like how even in your hypothetical scenario, blacks still had the most weapons and ok to stop and frisk.

so your bias is already showing, even hypothetically.

It makes sense to focus where the greatest concentrations of these illegal weapons are to be found, target the people most likely to be carrying them. If that turns out to be white people, then there is your answer.

Did you even read it? The whole idea is that the numbers drive the decisions. It starts out with an equal number. But according to you that is biased... And then the group that has the highest incident rate receives the most attention. But according to you that is biased...

a reply to: Vroomfondel

hell yeah.
it could possibly maybe save lives

lets do it!!!!

i bet you would be against any kind of gun control/reform even though it could possibly maybe save lives cause..... the constitution

am i right?

a reply to: projectvxn

Since the police in Chicago know who most of the shooters are, due to thousands of cameras in at-risk neighborhoods, and never apprehend them, no police-led preventative measures would work, imo.

originally posted by: projectvxn
Stop and frisk policy was ended in New York because it violated people's 4th Amendment rights among other reasons.

This is a policy that Republicans hang onto that I will never understand.

And sobriety checkpoints do too but they are still being used. The difference is that supposedly the sobriety checkpoints do not target individuals and there is no profiling of any kind as opposed to stop and frisk of the past where there was racial profiling. My plan resolves the issue of profiling and demands that the actual rate of incident determine the rate of inspection.

www.nyclu.org...

In 2002, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 97,296 times. 80,176 were totally innocent (82 percent).

In 2003, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 160,851 times. 140,442 were totally innocent (87 percent).

In 2004, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 313,523 times. 278,933 were totally innocent (89 percent).

In 2005, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 398,191 times. 352,348 were totally innocent (89 percent).

In 2006, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 506,491 times. 457,163 were totally innocent (90 percent).

a reply to: Vroomfondel

so youre not cool with a sobriety check point but you are cool with stop and frisk?

am i clear on this?

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: Vroomfondel

hell yeah.
it could possibly maybe save lives

lets do it!!!!

i bet you would be against any kind of gun control/reform even though it could possibly maybe save lives cause..... the constitution

am i right?

Yes you are. The second amendment is there for a reason and I believe in it wholeheartedly. And it has been proven that gun control doesn't save lives. London banned ALL firearms and just passed New York city for per capita murder rate. And its all being done with knives. So, now they want to ban knives. Banning doesn't work. Never has, never will. Focusing on the people who use the tools rather than the tools themselves is the only answer.

a reply to: TinySickTears

If just one life was saved, the inconvenience to the "frisked" was worth it. It's analogous to TSA screening everyone at the airport. Inconvenient, but worth it.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

en.wikipedia.org...

At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be asked to be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime;

however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the US Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.

took about 3 seconds to find that

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: TinySickTears

If just one life was saved, the inconvenience to the "frisked" was worth it. It's analogous to TSA screening everyone at the airport. Inconvenient, but worth it.

cool
by that logic if just one life was saved then guns being banned would be wort it??

correct

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: Vroomfondel

so youre not cool with a sobriety check point but you are cool with stop and frisk?

am i clear on this?

It doesn't matter what I think about it. It happens. You want to make an issue out of the legality, I gave examples of the legality making no difference in the outcome. People in this country are stopped for no reason all the time. It happens. Why not put it to good use for once?